User talk:Ki999

Welcome!

Hello, K999~azwiki! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dodi 8238 (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

October 2017

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Telegram (messaging service), as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Azercell logo normal.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Azercell logo normal.svg. 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)} 14:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Cengage-logo.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Cengage-logo.svg. 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)} 15:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fift

The article Fift has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Programming language with no evidence of meeting the general notability guideline

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DannyS712 (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Azercell logo normal.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Azercell logo normal.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Azercell-logo-3.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Azercell-logo-3.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Azercell-logo-1.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Azercell-logo-1.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, List of social platforms with more than 100M MAU

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of social platforms with more than 100M MAU. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of social platforms by monthly active users. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of social platforms by monthly active users. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Fram (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an article you've edited

Hi, I saw you have contributed some sizeable balanced edits to the Telegram (Messenger) page in the past and was wondering if you might wanna join forces and bring the page to a reasonable state, it's not in a good state right now. Seeing how you have quite a few edits about social media, this seems like it'd be in your area of interest. Here's a link to the original suggestion for clean-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Telegram_(software)#Messy_state_of_the_article ASpacemanFalls (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to List of social platforms with at least 100 million active users, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Talk:Andrew_Tate. ––FormalDude talk 09:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This warning is not valid because contrary to your claim, I did not "insert commentary or my personal analysis into an article". I possibly inserted them only into a talk page. Talk pages are not articles. I see you don't know what an "article" means. You may read here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_an_article

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

––FormalDude talk 11:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion is here. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: You have blocked me, claiming that I am "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia" because "consensus has it" but in fact this "consensus" that you claimed to exist has been established almost exclusively among 3 users with whom I was having an argument and was I believe very close to winning. I read "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia" very carefully and I am convinced more than ever that it does not apply to me. My impression is the whole report by these people consists almost exclusively of false accusations and accusation of things that are not a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The only time I think I definitely made a mistake was in a couple sentences where I used the word "lying" instead of "making false claim". I had made it very clear beforehand that I did not know for sure if the user made a false claim intentionally. In addition to this, I have very clearly apologised. Other than that, I have not been convinced of any wrongdoing by me. If you have seen any instances of behavior that prove I am clearly Wikipedia:NOTHERE, please list them using the following format for each of them:

1. Quote from me. The exact quote, not just someone's interpretation of it.
2. Quote(s) from Wikipedia's policies, explicitly explaining that my behavior was so unacceptable that it falls under Wikipedia:WHYBLOCK.

3. Any additional commentary is optional.

If you are too busy to provide evidence that supports my block, you may ask other administrators. But if all administration fails to provide evidence that I qualify for block, I will claim that blocking policy has been violated. Thanks. Ki999 (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is in the thread--this is a block that I placed based on what the community thinks about your editing, "community" here exemplified by the editors in the thread. You are welcome to ask other administrators what they think. You are also welcome to file an unblock request; instructions are in the block template. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: If you think opinions of the other users on that thread are the main criteria for deciding if I should be blocked, let me point out that I carefully read that thread and only 3 users there have expressed an opinion that I should be blocked. 2 of them were the exact users with whom I have had a long argument so they had direct interest in me being blocked. I would not call them even remotely neutral for this topic. Other than that, the only such opinion was that "Given the massive WP:IDHT above, I'd say that the only way this isn't going to wind up an indef is if Ki999 just walks away from the project. Addition by subtraction". I have already expressed that I consider this highly inappropriate and threatening. The user who wrote that has a very extensive history of participation in that page, especially during the last 1-year period, meaning it is safe to assume that this user generally enjoys making accusations about people, as they make it on a very regular basis. Meanwhile, due to the fact that you refused to provide evidence that I am WP:NOTHERE in the constructive format that I suggested, please provide me a method to ping multiple administrators. Given the guideline that a large number of unblock requests may lead to even more blocking, I believe it is too soon for me to file one.

Also, I would like to report User:WannurSyafiqah74 for the following behavior. I have never interacted with this user before you blocked me. This user came to my page with no apparent reason, claimed "Says a lot when you asked such specific topics" about me and refused to clearly express their opinion. Also called me "mad", said that my behaviour is "hilarious", suggested that I am "not civil", "not listening", "babbling", told me to "not edit here at all", claimed that I "seem to be weird and self-defensive", made sarcastic response to my quoting of WP policy, and, in addition to all of this, created a new admin notice, repeatedly suggesting that my access to this talk page may soon need to be revoked. All of this within a very short period.

My overall impression is that the "big lie" method is being used against me, and every single thing I say is being framed as something bad and promoted as a fault of me. Ki999 (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already warned the editor about their gravedancing, and I just told them to not abuse ANI either--thank you for pointing that out. I don't understand what you mean with "large number of unblock requests". Place one, and admins who follow such things will come here. Oh, don't twist words: I am not "refusing" to provide evidence. I assessed a consensus. If you want me to do a more detailed investigation of how your alleged ownership of Talk:Andrew Tate is disruptive enough for an indefinite block, I can do that. I would also look at what seems to be a very condescending way of talking to other editors and even administrators. And I suppose I would have to look at what other editors referred to as unverified statements and tendentious claims--I assume those concerned living people, and if you had read WP:BLP, the relevant policy, you would have noticed that the BLP applies throughout the project, including on talk pages. If I am somehow pushed into doing that, it won't happen today and maybe not tomorrow either, and the end result might be a discretionary sanction on top of this block. I refer you to the "Important Notice" above, placed by User:FormalDude.

Again, placing an unblock request is the way to draw other administrators here, and I am sure that the next admin to come by will look at this objectively. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I don't think I ever made any "tendentious claims" about Andrew Tate or that there was any "alleged ownership" of Talk:Andrew Tate. I did not say that you "refused to provide evidence", I said that you "refused to provide evidence in the constructive format that I suggested" (which is true, and does not mean the former). Due to the clear rule that consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority) I believe it would be more neutral to act as if all accusations to me come from a same person and focus only on quality of arguments, not the number or level of experience of people who make them. I have suggested a template for providing high-quality arguments and not a single high quality argument has been provided so far. If you are willing to investigate my behavior and present your findings in the format I suggested, go ahead. But I would like to ask:

1. What would it mean for me if I get 'discretionary sanction on top of this block'? I cannot understand that.

2. I have made a claim that the AT article (article itself, not talk page) is full of questionable claims which are not verified by sources. Do you recommend me to provide evidence for this claim (which I have not provided yet) on my talk page or just wait?

Thank you. Ki999 (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence was amply provided in the ANI discussion, and of the eight other editors involved in that discussion, not a single one was agreeing with you: that's a sound example of consensus in action. With that -- despite whatever narrative you have going on in your head, or the startling premise that you can't be accused of calling someone a liar as long as you didn't use the word "lying" -- your approval is not required for an indefinite block. Nor is Drmies or any other admin required to submit to your grilling before a block is somehow ratified.

The whole point behind why WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is an essential behavioral guideline is that "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" is blatantly disruptive behavior not conducive to building an encyclopedia. The advice in the guide to appealing blocks linked above is good. You would be well advised to heed it. Ravenswing 11:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you even come here? I have asked a very specific question to a very specific group of people. You are not from that group of people. You did not come to answer the question. The whole premise of my question is that evidence for me qualifying for block was not provided. And you still refused to provide evidence, other than just misinterpreting my words and declaring your own questionable interpretations of WP policies. The fact there was nobody who acted supportive towards me is not an example of my misbehavior. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Ki999 (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2022 (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).

Ki999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Explained below Ki999 (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see any grounds here to lift the block and overrule the discussion that led to it. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 27 September 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.

I am requesting an unblock. The reason to unblock me is simply the fact that the block was for no reason. Admin who blocked me did not specify any reason when blocking me other than “consensus” which was mainly among the users with whom I was having an argument.

I admit only the following wrongdoing at this point:

1. I said another user is “lying” when I did not know if their false claim was intentional, we apologised to each other long before block.

2. I ignored the advice to post at WP:RSP. The same applied to WP:Teahouse until some point.

I was also accused of doing things which are allowed on Wikipedia such as adding unsourced info into talk page and asking another user if they have a COI. Even the formal warning to me was given for violating a rule which was misinterpreted and was actually not violated.

The complaint about me was filed exclusively based on content I posted on a single talk page. If you can see any wrongdoing by me which I am yet to admit, please provide them using the format I requested above (between horizontal lines)

Content I have previously added to Wikipedia was cited in an article retweeted by Jimbo himself [1] but I am blocked because I am supposedly WP:NOTHERE. Ki999 (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: can you show me some examples what “grounds to lift a block” look like which you “don’t see” here? Examples where unblock request actually led to unblock? I actually wanted to draw multiple admins here just to investigate my behavior and find evidence of block-justifying behavior by me (which they never did). I wanted to do this before placing an unblock request but another admin told me that the way to call other admins is to place an unblock request. Which you declined after 6 minutes which shows you investigated nothing. Ki999 (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pings do not work unless your signature is in the same post in which you ping. Came here by chance. Please see the unblock appeals guide for information on crafting an unblock request likely to be accepted. In short, it should acknowldege the behavior that led to the block and say what you will do differently in the future. If the block was in error, you should explain why- though in what I reviewed, your request boils down to "they were wrong" without saying why. I am not the last word, you are welcome to make a new request for review by someone else. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Askarion

@Askarion: You claimed the following:

What makes a statement or action "notable" is not for me to decide; it is for reliable sources to decide. If they decide to write about and publish a certain thing Tate said or did, that must mean what he said or did is notable; if enough of them write about it, it creates a case for inclusion in the article. For now, the most notable thing Tate has done on Rumble is challenge KSI to a boxing match

This is completely false due to the fact that AT posted a video called "final message" on Rumble which was reported by The Sun, Independent, Insider, NBC NEWS, New York Times, Mirror. If you continue to claim that this fact "should not be included on Wikipedia because it is not notable since RS claimed it is not notable" then by your logic, WP is full of information that you consider inappropriate. Perhaps most of the encyclopedic content on WP falls into that category. Good luck with deleting all of that. Also you have engaged in debate with me in a place and time where I am not able to answer, so please respond to your own msg with a link to this text to avoid Gravedancing accusations. Thanks. Ki999 (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to engage in discussion at this time because it might be in violation of Wikipedia's banning policy, specifically WP:PROXYING, for a banned user to use their own talk page to leverage/discuss edits to articles on which they're banned from participation from, including, in your case, Andrew Tate and Talk:Andrew Tate. If your ongoing block appeal is approved by an administrator, we can discuss these edits further. As a courtesy, I'll offer one final note on this issue before going quiet: Wikipedia does not consider The Sun or Daily Mirror to be reliable sources. Of the remaining four, none of them mention that Tate posted this video on Rumble; Insider and NBC say they were posted "on Vimeo"; NYT says "on YouTube"; and Independent do not mention where the video was posted. Regardless, this video by Tate, "Final Message", is already discussed in the article under "Social media presence". Thank you, Askarion ✉ 19:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Askarion: [2] [3] ykwim Ki999 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Askarion is correct: there shall be no proxying. Right now, your talk page is for requesting an unblock. You have not placed an unblock request, and that makes it very inappropriate for you to be discussing article content, requesting others to do the editing for you. Either place that unblock request, or the NOTHERE block might be extended to your user talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - plus, to Ki999: you need to read WP:UNBLOCK. I'm sorry for my gravedancing from before, as I was not trustworthy of you, but honestly - I feel as if it's easier to comply that you did not behave, write a decent reason for unblocking, change for the better and then you can contribute again.

Right now, it's unnecessary to ask people to edit things for you at this time. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022/11/27 request to get unblocked

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).

Ki999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Absence of a reason for block. Blocking was a mistake. There was a truly long list of accusations towards me but not a single one valid to justify a block. Maybe I missed something but all of the accusations fell into one of these 3 categories: Things where I actually did something wrong and apologized for it long before block; People clearly misquoting me; Accusiations of things which are NOT prohibited. This whole site-wide blocking was justified exclusively by a single section of a single talk page of a single article over addition of a single non-controversial sentence which was added by another user anyway (like 1 month after that). I have previously appealed to a block and admin just responded after 6 minutes "I see no reason for unblock" when what could they even see in 6 minutes? I asked them to investigate the whole story. The admin who blocked me didn't specify any reason for block other than "consensus" which was among 3 people 2 of which were the ones with whom I was arguing from beginning and the other one just seems to chronically enjoy (or what?) making accusations against all kinds of people on that noticeboard. I was NOT given any warning at all before the report of me other than one warning by FormalDude which FD put in 2 places at once, I disregarded this warning since this warning was clearly a mistake – it was given to me becasue I "inserted my original research into article" which was technically impossible to do, I only inserted my OR into talk page. This experienced user clearly gave me a FALSE warning and I told them it long ago and they refused to admit it and then this false warning was used to justify the block. What I will do differently if I get blocked? Good question, I am not sure if I 9️⃣9️⃣9️⃣ can 👁️ see 🎨 future but I would like to cause more awareness among people that wikipedia isn't what it appears to be according to its policies and representation of site by services like Google (main sponsor of WMP who would lose millions if my edit was approved earlier), it doesn't care about truth, consists of gross sitewide violation of NPOV, performing censorship and pushing propaganda pushing in the name of ReLiAbLe SoUrCeS and the center for this is the WP:RSP craplist as well as how this list is being interpreted, there are like 100 "generally reliable" sources here which are imo some of the worst English language sites on the planet and everything except what those propaganda outlets say editors can just refuse to add simply because they don't want it for whatever undisclosed reason "because there are no reliable sources to support this" but if these sources let's say refer to a website as "far-right site x" without even bothering to justify this viewpoint wikipedia experienced editors just add it into the first sentence "x is a far right website" because "reliable sources said so". I don't even know what "far-right" means but according to my understanding of what wikipedia says it is Nazi+ Pro Max. Which I actually doubt because I have seen wikipedia giving false defintions to all kinds of stuff for example "misogyny", Andrew Tate is totally misogynistic according to that definition except that definition is a wrong one, misogyny is just hatred towards women as a whole and that is it and AT is not a misogynist by that definition, contrary to what "RS" say he didn't call himself misogynist ever, he only described a hypothetical scenario like "I will say I am absolutely a misogynist and you will not be able to do anything about it" and that's it, then in a show a few weeks ago he said "I am SUPPOSEDLY a misogynist, not actually misogynist". What I would change in that article: Add mentions of his brother to whom he is extremely close and Tristan doesn't even have his own WP page which he should if you ask me; Some purely structural changes; Removing of unsourced info especially from lead section; Changing profile pic. Other than that article is a good quality. It is not prohibited to criticize wikipedia, is it? I am asking to just unblock me right now or investigate my edits (MY EDITS, not others' opinions about them) to show examples of my wrongdoing accoring to a template above but if admins fail/refuse/etc. to do this I will count as a proof that I did nothing wrong, while I am still open to further admitting wrongdoing in case I missed something. Ki999 (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Both this unblock request, which seems to be more of an indictment of Wikipedia's great injustice than a serious attempt to meaningfully engage with the concerns that led to your block , as well as your conduct elsewhere on this page and in community discussions, convince me that the block continues to be necessary. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs I am considering making another unblock request but before that I would like to get a better understanding of reasons why you thought I should remain blocked. Could you please give me more clarification of what you wrote? Ki999 (talk) 08:21, 9 October 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.