User talk:Mark Boron

Welcome!

Hi Mark Boron! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at 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.

Happy editing! --Kmhkmh (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:List of largest empires (Square Kilometeres)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:List of largest empires (Square Kilometeres). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 8#Wikipedia:List of largest empires (Square Kilometeres) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

--

I assume you're new to this and haven't quite got the hang of it yet. We don't normally move things to the Wikipedia space if they break the guideline on original research.

I am listing the redirect Wikipedia:List of largest empires (Square Kilometeres) for deletion because it's not a plausible way for people to find the article. If you feel that the article needs to be deleted or moved, there are processes available at WP:AFD (for deletion) or WP:RM (for moves). However, by the looks of things I think you just need to discuss your edits with other editors on the talk page, using dispute resolution if it comes to it.

Thanks for your edits. Kahastok talk 20:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For Correction (Mark Boron (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? That's twice you've removed a report about you at ANI. You can't possibly think that's how this works? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I will not making persistent edits, and I want to talk more on the talk page to help improve the content with the acceptance of all members Thanks Mark Boron (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2020 (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. Yamla (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2020 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I will not making persistent edits, and I want to talk more on the talk page to help improve the content with the acceptance of all members, it wasn't my intention to do anything wrong sorry, I'm already blocked ah 3 days please unlock me if possible, Thanks = Mark Boron (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2020 (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 aren't blocked for "making persistent edits". Please reread WP:GAB to understand how to craft a coherent unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friend what I did was I discussed on the talk page several times a piece of content that I wanted to be changed and I proved it, they ignored it, I presented it with reliable sources, then I edited it several times, and the content always returned to normal, even though I edited it several times, then I edited it again and to get the attention of an administrator I put "pp-semi-indef" in the content, I did it for an administrator to see if my content was correct, and then they blocked me, do you think it is normal? my intention was to check my content, I never thought it would be blocked. (Mark Boron (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

You have two open unblock requests, with the more recent one higher up on this page. (1) Remove one of them; there should only be one unblock request at a time; (2) your most recent unblock request belongs at the bottom of the page, not randomly in the middle. This allows other editors to easily follow the chronology of comments and threads. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:51, 13 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

what I did was I discussed on the talk page several times a piece of content that I wanted to be changed and I proved it, they ignored it, I presented it with reliable sources, then I edited it several times, and the content always returned to normal, even though I edited it several times, then I edited it again and to get the attention of an administrator I put "pp-semi-indef" in the content, I did it for an administrator to see if my content was correct, and then they blocked me, my intention was to check my content, I never thought it would be blocked. Mark Boron (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per Special:Diff/977640797, you're a meat puppet. You need to address this violation of our policy on canvassing and sock puppetry. We're not going to unblock you so that you can perform proxy edits for a blocked sock puppeteer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2020 (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.

oh my god what sympathy no comments...(Mark Boron (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)) you can unlock me i won't edit anything anymore, after all it's not even worth editing, don't be bad, be a good person would you like me to do the same with you? no, right? so please unlock me (Mark Boron (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Sockpuppetry

You and another account were reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Boron. I determined that you control the account User:Expert Master and have used it to evade the block on this account. I advise you that the only way you will be unblocked is if a administrator accepts an unblock request made by this account, and if you continue to evade your block this will be held against you in any further unblock request here. If you continue to create accounts which evade your block, they will be blocked and your edits reverted. If you desire to edit here constructively, you will need to request an unblock here. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understood then how I was blocked by "Sockpuppet" can't I edit for six months? but before I was blocked indefinitely. I didn't understand anything about the wikipedia policy, now that I understand that I was blocked, I don't know what's going on, I just want to be unblocked, I had other accounts on the wikipedia but I only edited with two, and I was forced to create because I was blocked with the first that accused me wrongly, just for putting pp-semiprotected in the article of the page because in my understanding I thought they were violating the rules and I decided to call an administrator, I did that I never thought it would be blocked, I am being honest I admit that I may have been wrong yes, because I didn't know how things worked. You guys don't want to unlock me ok, but I still have a word to say, I think. One thing is for sure if I were an administrator I was more friendly to people and trying to understand the reasons first, it is not blocking and it is already, this is nothing to me and I find a tremendous lack of respect. (Mark Boron (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Edit warring. Disruptive editing (including twice removing a report about yourself from WP:ANI!). Sockpuppetry. Multiple unblock requests that do not address the reason for the block. Yeah, that's pretty much enough. One more unblock request that does not address these issue will result in removal of talk page access. You (the person) are not allowed to edit Wikipedia until this account is unblocked. If this account is not unblocked, you are never allowed to edit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok depends on the points of view and everything, sorry again, what do I need to do to unlock me? (Mark Boron (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Well, no, it does not depend on point of view. I do not see how you can be unblocked until you acknowledge the multiple disruptions above are actually disruptions, and convincingly promise not to do them again. Perhaps Wikipedia is just not set up in a way that works for you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, it happened because I didn’t read the rules correctly, but now I’ve read and know, and I recognize that I didn’t do well and admit my mistakes, if I could go back I wouldn’t do the same, because now I understand that wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and obviously I wouldn't do it again why is it wrong what did i do and because I don't want to be blocked again, before editing any content I prefer to debate the subject on the "talk page" of the articles, I admitted my mistakes and I promised not to do the same again and explained why, but I know that for you to believe in me it is difficult, so tell me something that I can do to return to you have confidence in me? (Mark Boron (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

So because you didn't read the rules, you thought it would be OK to remove the report about you from ANI? Twice? That doesn't seem truthful. It seems more likely that you knew it was wrong and did it anyway. Right? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'd like an answer. It's hard to interact with you when, even now, I don't believe you're being honest.

Minimum things I'd want to see in order to unblock:

Clear acceptance of WP:0RR for 6 months. You are never allowed to revert anyone, anywhere, for any reason, for 6 months.
Enforced WP:BRD for 6 months. If you add something and are reverted, you cannot add it back. If, after your edit is reverted, there is a discussion that goes your way, you still cannnot add it back. Someone else from the discussion will add it back.
Acknowledge that you're new. Many people know more about how things work around here than you do. Take their advice. I'm constantly amazed at the number of new editors who come here and immediately start lecturing old timers about what policies and guidelines say. I would never dream of acting that way on another website.
Indefinitely limited to one account. Indefinitely prohibited from contributing to discussions that people you know outside WP are contributing to, or asked you to join.
Indefinite topic ban from List of largest empires, and one-way interaction ban from User:TompaDompa.

@Yamla, NinjaRobotPirate, and Dreamy Jazz: anything to add? Is 6 months too long or too short? etc.

Those are really strict requirements. They're strict for a reason, because I have lost quite a bit of faith here. If they are not acceptable you can try your luck with another unblock request, and another admin will review it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, I appreciate all the time you are putting in here. No objection to an unblock under these terms. This user would be held to a short rope (WP:ROPE), but at least has a chance of proving they can be constructive. Weighing slightly in their favour is that the discussion here has been a significantly more competent than the unblock request over at User talk:Expert Master, though... that's not much of an endorsement. Mark Boron, I encourage you to take this offer. It's generous and it's probably your final opportunity to prove yourself. --Yamla (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. After being informed of our policy on meat puppetry, he's now created multiple sock puppets, too? Well, it's your block, so you can lift it whenever you want. But I personally wouldn't consider an unblock request until at least the completion of the standard offer, which suggests showing us that one can go six months without engaging in sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this is a generous offer that shouldn't be taken lightly. Violating these restrictions will not look good and will likely lead to a block.

To Floquenbeam: They haven't answered your question, which was labelled with big red text. They haven't directly acknowledged that they are new, just that they "agree to the terms and conditions".

On the other hand, if the user follows these restrictions it should keep the user from doing the same activities. Certainly, the topic ban from the page will remove them from the area of concern. Also, this gives the user a chance to show they can edit constructively.

I think I have no major objection to an unblock under these terms, though I would want these terms to be considered strict as you say. I think any violation which is not in good faith should be met with a block again. These terms should be a seen as a last chance. Its your block, so if you are happy with unblocking under these terms, I will endorse and support an unblock with these terms. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, now one of the suspected sockpuppets has opened another unblock request denying that they are this user. I believe these accounts are controlled by the same person, so I am going to say that I think this user has had enough chances and that the standard offer should be taken / this user should be left blocked. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz; It was my wife who sent a message asking why she is blocked, she also cannot edit? we use the same obvious address, what the problem?(Mark Boron (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

We cannot prove that it is your wife that controls that account. On the contrary, there are a lot of similarities between how you and that account edit, so I don't believe this is the case.

If it is your wife that controls that account as you say, why didn't you mention it before? Also, if you wife controls that account, you then created the account for her and (I strongly believe) you encouraged her / helped her to make comments on the talk page, which is a violation of the meatpuppetry policy which says that Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. You had been told about the policy in your last unblock request here by NinjaRobotPirate. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz; again i will be as sincere as possible, She is not influenced by me, I am Portuguese but she is not even Portuguese, she is Brazilian but we live in Portugal now because the pandemic situation, she just wanted to discuss the matter nothing more, if you want proof she can give, no problem, although you are being unfair to me i wish you all the best and that this situation that the world is going through passes quickly, cheers (Mark Boron (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I accept the offer and agree to the terms and conditions, although it will ban me from a topic I like "list of largest empires" and even talk on the topic talk page, but if you don't trust me I understand your reasons, if you want to know, i didn't read the rules only after i was blocked, i read the rules for me to understand the reason for my block, i'm being honest yes, this user who referred complained about me, and i thought, what Iwas acting well as I am new here I thought that having proof was worth more than certain actions and I protected the content for an administrator to solve the problem , I never thought it would be blocked, but ok it is over, I think you should trust others more, I've lived in several countries on 3 continents and I'm licensed, I have a wide culture, I decided to go to wikipedia I read this article and I didn't like the content, so I debated about the content, this user was stubborn, so I got upset because he didn't respect the my opinion and didn't want to find a neutral point, now of course I didn't know the rules, I am new here, but now I know the rules. My Reasons: 1 - I never offended anyone on wikipedia 2 - I created other accounts because I thought it was good to create other accounts because I didn't know the rules, and I only edited this account and another one. 3 - I didn't know the rules, I only knew well after being blocked. 4 - I protected the content (semi-protection) because I did not know that it was only the administrators who could do this, because I thought that some administrator would solve or debate the problem under discussion. 5 - I don't know why I was accused of disruption edition, because I had reliable sources, and I just edited the content like any other editor (I never offended anyone) (Mark Boron (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello Thanks I send here my sincere reasons for my unblock my account: User:Mark Boron 1 - I never offended anyone on wikipedia

2 - I created other accounts because I thought it was good to create other accounts but I didn't use, I created an account for my wife because she was interested in editing.

3 - I didn't know the rules, I only knew well after being blocked.

4 - I protected the content (semi-protection) because I did not know that only administrators could do this, because I thought that some administrator would solve or debate the problem under discussion.

5 - I don't know why I was accused of editing disruption, because I had reliable sources, and I just edited the content like any other editor.

6 - Please let me edit or less on the any article's talk pages (I never offended anyone) am I not entitled to a second chance?

I don't want to interrupt any project at all, I just want to go to the discussion page and come to a good sense of any article, I didn't know the rules I was taken by surprise Mark Boron (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Due to on-going sockpuppetry, this account can’t be unblocked. only (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2020 (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.

Again, as you ask for a unblock, yet another account with a similar editing style appears. This new, now blocked, suspected sockpuppet is User:JJ Mag. Socking while asking to be unblocked is not the right way to get unblocked. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friend I was prevented from editing and creating any account so it's impossible to be mine don't you think you're implying too much with me? I just want to be unblocked, or less let me edit it on the article's talk pages, I'm already almost blocked for 1 month, don't you think it's too much? I don't think what I did was so serious, the edits was revert I made are not quite as you want them so what is the problem? (Mark Boron (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry and lying during mutiple unblock requests. Enough wasting of other users' valuable time.. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to the people above whose time I wasted asking for opinions on my unblock conditions. By now I probably should have known better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine, you don't have to apologise. I'd much rather have the chance of being able to unblock someone who would go on to be constructive than leave everyone blocked without a second chance. Thanks for the work you put in on creating the unblock conditions. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]