User talk:Kompress0

Still blocked

Signing up for a new account doesn't change that. Whether it's an ip or a registered account, you need to go back and get that account unblocked before you can edit. - wolf 03:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To that end, your partial block from RAS syndrome has also been applied to this account. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of like ignoring the fact that DC comics isn't a redundant acronym doesn't make it go away. It's still not, and never will be. Kompress0 (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Kompress0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jacona (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find Wikipedia enjoyable to edit, if you will keep an open ear to listen to others and learn how to - and how not to - edit. When an experienced editor takes issue with something you have done, instead of launching into combat mode, ask them questions about how to proceed and you will find that they are almost always helpful. On the other hand, if you just want to fight and moan about how life is unfair and how persecuted you are, it appears that you have a good plan of action. — Jacona (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the input, I really do. As far as RAS syndrome, before the first block was ever put into place I made a solid case as to why DC comics does not apply using the dictionary definition of 'redundant' and notes from the non-examples of the page itself. wolfchild didn't address any of it and their only response could basically be boiled down to "nuh-uh"

As far as the mosquitofish entry, I could find fifty other pages on which references in television shows are considered pop culture references and not trivia. That along with the fact that C. Fred approved my entry Kompress0 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But yes there is crazy bias on this site. You can't see it, or want to ignore it, because you benefit from it. Kompress0 (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've made it pretty clear that you don't want to talk about it, just attempt to enforce your will on others without discussion. That is not the way Wikipedia works. It is collaborative. If you would discuss this on the article talk page, it might be very well that others would agree with your edit. However, you've made it obvious that your intent is to treat the article as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. That won't get you far on Wikipedia, it won't get you far in life. I hope for your own sake you learn to work with others instead of just starting fights for no real reason. — Jacona (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been trying to do. I've made cases for every one of my edits that have been ignored entirely. Kompress0 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is the process as it stands today. Personally, I think it could use some improvement, and I feel that how "consensus" is gathered is a bit odd, but it is what it is for now. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So be the change you want to see, let this be the jumping off point Kompress0 (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For one, verifiable facts should trump consensus outright. Kompress0 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what about your edit to Mosquitofish, where the source you cited does not verify the addition? —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not? It's a description of the episode and f you have DirecTV you can literally sign in and watch it. Kompress0 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to cite an episode of a TV show as a source, give some sort of a time marker so that other editors can verify the information. It's not practical to watch a 40–48 minute video for one scene. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a scene. It's most of the episode, which is called 'mosquito control officer'

Lol... Kompress0 (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the entire episode is about the mosquitofish? (And the episode is not available for streaming on Discovery+, alas.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No not the entire episode, they're always divided up into two jobs. Kompress0 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://therokuchannel.roku.com/details/b8bd6723893e340accf2de9d8d3a33a5/dirty-jobs-s2-e4-mosquito-control-officer Kompress0 (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Ah, the internet, 2022 version. Roku will not let you access the content unless they get a cut of your Discovery+ subscription.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well blah. So anyway, yeah, it exists. They net the fish out of ditches and throw them into abandoned pools after Katrina. They even refer to them as 'gambusia' Kompress0 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mosquitofish. 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. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:RAS syndrome. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Wikipedia operates based on consensus. If you want to try to change the established consensus, you'll need to cite additional reliable sources. If you persist in making personal attacks against other editors, your editing privileges will be revoked. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make a single, accurate, sourced, good faith edit. One that you initially approved, by the way. Kompress0 (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And when are Jacona and wolfchild going to be blocked for edit warring? Kompress0 (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging that you are aware of WP:3RR and edit warring guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So when do they get their bans? Kompress0 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's right, never. Because of demonstrable, undeniable bias. Kompress0 (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias against what? An anonymous person on the Internet who refuses to work with others? Lol! Jacona (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you and wolfchild repeatedly engaged in reverting my edits? Kompress0 (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BRD (which has been sent to you multiple times) to understand what editing, reverting, and discussing is all about. — Jacona (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you repeatedly reverted my edits? Yes or no Kompress0 (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know your race, your gender, your religion, nor anything else about you for us to be biased against it. I doubt that anyone has a real deep-rooted affection of or hatred against mosquitofish. So think...maybe we are biased against people who come in, make bad edits, and then refuse to listen to how to make good edits. People who cry that people are biased against them (again, they don't know you). That's downright childish and silly. If you so desperately want to add the "in popular culture" section, learn how to do it. If you don't know how, ask questions on the article talk page, the talk pages of people who have reverted you, the teahouse, etc. We've offered you so many opportunities to learn how to constructively edit, but you haven't bothered to make the attempt to work with other editors rather than just be combative. If you work with others, you will get much accomplished. If you just continue to consider everything a battle, you won't. It's that simple. — Jacona (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer my question Kompress0 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "blocked" and "evasion" don't you get?

You are currently blocked under your other IP account. You've been blocked enough times now that you're aware of the blocking policy, and you been notified enough times now that you are aware of the evasion and sock puppet policies as well. Why do you continue to flout the rules? They apply to you, just like everybody else. If you want to edit, you need to return to your previous talk page and request to be unblocked. You've done that before, so you know how that works as well. Until you are unblocked, that is the only account you can use, and even then, you can only use it to post unblock requests, not to continue to debate content of articles you been specifically p-blocked from. It's time to start following the rules. - wolf 21:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So then you'll advocate for yourself and Jacona to be banned, for violating the rules on edit warring. After all the rules apply to you, just like everyone else. Kompress0 (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rules do apply to all. No one is biased against you - we have no idea who you are, just a random person on the internet. Consider reading the links we've provided to learn what they are, so you can understand why you've been blocked. It's not, as you say WP:BIAS, because all other editors know about you is your behavior here. You have refused to collaborate and refused to read the material we have provided so that you can understand how to edit productively. If you wish to participate then take some time to learn, then return with an attitude of cooperation rather than warfare. — Jacona (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even try to tell that lie at this point. I've made valid points for all my edits, which were then continually reverted out of spite. Kompress0 (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one knows who you are, so why would they revert you "out of spite"? Do you see any other possibilities? — Jacona (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I need to see another possibility? Spite fits perfectly. I moved on from the RAS page, tried to make a constructive edit, and it was reverted for no other reason than spite. An edit that was approved by an admin, mind you. Kompress0 (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent edit warning, despite your IPs being blocked for the same disruption, and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

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 ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

Kompress0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made valid cases for all of my edits, which were continually reverted out of spite Kompress0 (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:16, 21 November 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.

Unblocking Two

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).

Kompress0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked. I'll be nice, but I would appreciate some objectivity when it comes to other users and their spiteful behavior. Kompress0 (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declining for still not understanding the reason for the block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 22 November 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.

You shouldn't have been editing, as you are currently blocked on another account. - wolf 17:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have revoked TPA here and at the user's blocked IP. This person is disruptive whether they are editing or are blocked, and their unblock requests and personal attacks cannot continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of known or suspected socks

— Jacona (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(comtinuing to update list with accounts) - wolf 07:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And comments like this mean there are still likely other accounts. - wolf 02:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And comments like this confirm that there are. - wolf 07:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have condensed all accounts to a single list in numerical order. Will continue adding as required. - wolf 17:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended the existing partial block on 97.122.0.0/19 to the entire site and revoked talk page access since the user has decided the only thing they still want to do on Wikipedia, despite millions of other pages available to edit, is keep filing pointless, argumentative unblock requests until talk page access is revoked on a particular IP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of various unblock requests, posted by Kompress0 via the various IP accounts noted above, (list copied from one of those IP talk pages);

links
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]

- wolf 07:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]