Jump to content

User talk:Mismak Abel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Mismak Abel, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} 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 username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 08:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! Mismak Abel, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

- wolf 08:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Thanks. Mismak Abel (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. You were only warning me to correct me. I should be grateful always. Thanks. Mismak Abel (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Living status of election candidates

[edit]

Hi. I have reverted a large number of your edits where you have added a sentence about the living status of election candidates. There are two problems with what you have added.

  • Firstly it is unsourced and appears to be a result of your own personal research. Wikipedia does not publish original research and requires sources.
  • Secondly, Wikipedia is not a dated publication. So telling readers the current status of people, and whether the election is the "most recent", is of little help to them because they have no idea when the fact was written. It could be out of date, obsolete, and supplanted, while still claiming to be "recent". People die and elections happen all the time.

So to include this information you would first have to cite a reliable source, and also provide a date for it. Thanks. Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Is it ok if I write down the informations by adding the portion of a sentence saying as of 2023? Mismak Abel (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you need to cite a source. Where are you getting this information? How can the reader tell it's correct? I also suspect that most of it would be regarded as unimportant trivia. Who cares if both candidates are dead in 2023? What does that add to the article? Just because it's a fact does not mean it's of any significance. This is where citing a source would also help in demonstrate it is significant. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Mismak Abel (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are still doing this. Please stop working out, and then adding to Wikipedia articles, trivia facts about;

  • who was dead when, compared to other people.
  • who was the older/younger/oldest/youngest, compared to other people.
  • who was first/last to do something, compared to other people.

If you had a source, you might be able to demonstrate that some of these facts are significant. But currently it's all just trivia, that is your own original research, which is unsourced. This is not permitted on Wikipedia and you are wasting your own time, and everyone who has to keep removing it. Continuing to edit in this manner will likely get you blocked for being disruptive. Please stop it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are right. I do not want to write down the things that I wrote down in the past ever again. I want to focus on correcting and editing mistakes on Wikipedia articles. You are right. Sorry. I apologize. I hate disruptiveness. Mismak Abel (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is better this way. Mismak Abel (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be disheartened. Your other edits are good. You just need to understand that what is added to Wikipedia cannot be things you researched yourself, they need to be things that other sources have already written. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Mismak Abel (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will try carefully to write down things that other sources have written down already and I will of course also write down the current year so that the readers would know when the writings occurred. Mismak Abel (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To show where I got the source from that I have written on the Wikipedia article about the 1984 United States Senate election in Tennessee I have written down where I got the source from on my edit summary. It is there. Mismak Abel (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please I want you to fix the edits on the article about the 1808 presidential election. Please do it. Thank you. Mismak Abel (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please undo the messy edits that I made on the Wikipedia article about the 1808 United States presidential election. I am sorry for doing them. It was a mistake. I deeply apologize for it. Mismak Abel (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Lists of United States political families.

[edit]

Hello, Mismak Abel. I have noticed your edits to the List of United States political families (S) page. I just want to suggest that it might be easier and faster to do the editing by grouping them up more rather than making a change or two, saving, and then making another change or two. Best of luck, Super Goku V (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to dissect this one word at a time.

[edit]

"I would ask you kindly to not reverse what I am going to edit now. I disagree with your edits and I have reversed them because edits similar to them are in this article and they have been left intact. Kindly stop. Just stop! Thank you. Stop with the vandalism."

"I would ask you kindly not to reserve what I am going to edit now." Why should I give you more respect than you gave me? I meticulously sourced and cited every single date, and you decided that wasn't sufficient?
"I disagree with your edits" Neat, I disagree with yours. If only there was some way we could resolve this?
"and I have reversed them because edits similar to them are in this article" That doesn't make sense.
"and they have been left intact." Are you talking about how sometimes, they left office on January 1, and sometimes, on December 31? That's because that's when they left office. If only there were sources that I cited that you could click to find out this! Oh well, alas.
"Kindly stop." No.
"Just stop!" You said that already. You seem to be taking this personally.
"Stop with the vandalism" This is going to be extremely important for you if you care to continue working on wikipedia: Disagreeing with you is not vandalism.

I await your comments, either here, on my talk page, or, where you should have gone to begin with, on the article talk page. --Golbez (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am guilty of lying by making a false accusation of vandalism when vandalism never happened with you. You are right. I will leave the edits as they are. I will just edit and correct the mistakes that I will find on different Wikipedia articles. Mismak Abel (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deeply apologize for accusing you of vandalism. You are right. Sorry. I hate what I did against you. Mismak Abel (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reversed the wrong edits that I have made. Thanks for doing the right thing and correcting me due to your collaboration. Mismak Abel (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I reversed the wrong edits that you made, then you made several more wrong edits. I do not understand you. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say that I have reversed some edits that I had reversed different from the ones you reversed and then on the other hand I was thanking you for your collaboration as a Wikipedia editor. Please do not misunderstand me. Ok? Thank you. Mismak Abel (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But anyways thanks for doing your job. Mismak Abel (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. Why did you reverse the edits that I made on the Wikipedia article about governors of New York? You basically have written down edits with the end dates of some gubernatorial terms to 1 January followed by the years in which the terms ended. Why are you saying that they did not expire on 31 December? Mismak Abel (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that are sourced as taking office at midnight get the Dec 31/Jan 1 treatment. All the others switched on Jan 1. --Golbez (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Okay. I see. Thanks. Mismak Abel (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You were talking about having reversed the other edits that I made on the Wikipedia article of the governors of New York being wrong. I accept that. It is okay. I will leave it. Mismak Abel (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Let me correct my typing mistake. I meant to say that you were talking about how the other edits that I made on the Wikipedia article about governors of New York were wrong. It is okay. I accept that. I will not reverse them. Thanks. Mismak Abel (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin D. Roosevelt - term of office

[edit]

Hi. You've been asked several times to stop changing the end date for Roosevelt's governor term against consensus. It's getting a bit disruptive to the page, so you've been temporarily blocked from making edits to this one article.

You're free to edit the article again in one week, but if you still think the term expired on January 1 rather than December 31 it would help if you supplied some reliable sources to support your case. Rather than edit-warring in the article itself, it would also be helpful if you presented your argument and sourcing at Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt so that the existing consensus can be evaluated, kept or changed. Happy to discuss further and all the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I apologize. I will never ever reverse the edits again. Mismak Abel (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to reverse edits when they need reversing, just make sure you have reliable sources for your proposed changes. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks. Mismak Abel (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will not reverse the correct edits but the incorrect edits. Mismak Abel (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

re Ohio

[edit]

Why are you so incorrectly confident that Cleveland won Ohio in 1892? Our article shows Harrison won. To quote some of your edit summaries: Get your facts straight and stop writing down falsity. For someone who is so insulting of others for putting incorrect info, you need to be more careful with what you publish. --Golbez (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. You are correct. I am sick and tired of rudeness. I will learn to make corrections on Wikipedia with good manners always. Thank you for correcting my mistake. Harrison won Ohio in 1892. Cleveland lost Ohio to Harrison in 1892. Mismak Abel (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will always learn to have my facts straight always and then I will always and only act positively whenever I correct mistakes on Wikipedia. I hate rudeness. I love good manners. Mismak Abel (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact whenever I will get to find mistakes on Wikipedia I will correct them on Wikipedia by being kind and nice to the editors who wrote the mistakes on Wikipedia. We all make mistakes and we learn from them. Mismak Abel (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Golbez. I have a question. Why is it that the popular vote percentages of presidential candidates in presidential elections do not have two digits each after the dots and before the percentage symbols in the upper parts of the articles of American presidential elections while they have the two digits after the dots and before the percentage symbols in the tables about the results of the presidential elections in the lower parts of the articles? Mismak Abel (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know. That's a question best asked of the editors that work on those articles, either asking them directly or on the talk page. I've never dealt with the percentages so I don't know. --Golbez (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks. Mismak Abel (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  DrKay (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I want to be unblocked is because for real I had noticed that an editor was able to eliminate a profanity word on an article about Governor Chris Sununu of New Hampshire and his edit was not reversed. How is it that my edits that removed profanities on the articles that I had edited in different occasions have been reversed and they were not left where they were at? This is not fair. Show some respect. What you are doing is crazy. I am tired of this. Mismak Abel (talk) 18:55, 11 July 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).

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

Request reason:

the reason is because an editor was rightly allowed to reverse an edit containing a profanity word on the article about Governor Chris Sununu of New Hampshire and to have his edit untouched and unreversed. I deserved this same treatment. Come on, man. Please. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. Only one open request is needed at a time. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 12 July 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason why I want to be unblocked is because I know that there was a guy who removed an edit that contained a profanity word on the article about Governor Chris Sununu of New Hampshire and the edit that he made was not reversed. Why is it that I did not get the same treatment? Mismak Abel (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You do not provide the specific edit to Chris Sununu that you discuss, so I can't comment on it, but each edit is considered on its own merits. At Spiro Agnew you removed profanity that was integral to the article(how a Senator described Agnew). 331dot (talk) 08:52, 12 July 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

the reason I want to be unblocked is because it is better for me to not reverse the profanities on Wikipedia articles even though I still hate the profanities so much and I will focus instead on correcting mistakes on Wikipedia articles and on also adding missing things on Wikipedia articles. So unblock me, please. Thank you.

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate and confirm that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:

    1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
    2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
      • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}}),
      • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]),
      • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]),
      • and do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
    3. Click edit at your talk page and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
    4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
    5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include any citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
  • Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
  • When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking using {{unblock}} and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
    • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will hopefully improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 22:12, 12 July 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I want to be unblocked because I agree to follow the rules of Wikipedia and I agree to contribute always and only positively to Wikipedia. I am willing to focus on that. I will wait for a response or for an answer. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; user plans to follow the second-chance offered above, so will make an unblock request after following those instructions. Yamla (talk) 12:17, 13 July 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.

To be clear, you are explicitly rejecting the path you were offered, correct? You are not interested in demonstrating you plan to edit constructively? --Yamla (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are wrong. You need to be corrected by me here or let me correct you here because I am willing to edit in civil ways and decent ways. I am willing to make constructive edits on Wikipedia articles. I am willing to focus on that. That is why I want to be unblocked. I actually mean it. Please understand me. Thank you.
Yes or no, are you planning on following the path I offered you to demonstrate you plan to edit constructively? --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mismak Abel (talk • contribs)

Continued disruptive editing

[edit]

You are continuing to edit disruptively. Please note that you have access to this talk page solely so you can contest your block, not so you can mess around with disruptive edits like this. You are in danger of losing talk page access so I suggest you knock it off immediately. --Yamla (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me sign the comment that I have to sign? Mismak Abel (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Mismak Abel (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need. And I see you know how to sign future comments, so everything's good. --Yamla (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I see. Thanks. Mismak Abel (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So am I going to be unblocked now? Mismak Abel (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. You have not yet followed the directions above and frankly, asking this question strongly indicates you lack sufficient competence to be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 14:39, 13 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I agree to contribute positively to Wikipedia articles and to never in any moment disrupt anything on Wikipedia. I do also agree that I will focus on just correcting mistakes on Wikipedia articles by reversing wrong, erroneous and incorrect edits and on adding missing contents on Wikipedia articles.Mismak Abel (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as duplicate request. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:27, 14 July 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.

As you are clearly rejecting the path I offered you to unblocking above, despite earlier today claiming you were accepting the offer, I very strongly oppose lifting this block. Furthermore, your actions today clearly demonstrate WP:CIR competence concerns. I will not respond further. --Yamla (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I solved the problem. It is all good. I am sorry for the mistakes that I had made.[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).

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

Request reason:

I am planning on following the path you offered me to demonstrate I plan to edit constructively Mismak Abel (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as duplicate request. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:28, 14 July 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for reversing an edit with a profanity word on a Wikipedia article about Spiro Agnew, I will not do it ever again and I will learn to contribute positively to Wikipedia so please unblock me and learn to respond to me quickly and stop ignoring me, please. Thank you Mismak Abel (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You say you've read and accept the offer that Yamla makes above, about how to earn a second chance to return to editing. That's great but you now need to actually follow those instructions and create some sample edits here on this talkpage. This will help demonstrate your editing skills and be a step toward an unblock of this account. You don't need to be unblocked to follow the instructions Yamla has outlined. But until you do follow those instructions and actually make some sample edits, there's no point in creating more unblock requests. Feel free to post a further request only after you've followed Yamla's instructions and posted some sample edits on this page. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:24, 14 July 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.


Where did you make sample edits? I notice the two sentences you added but they aren't an example of an encyclopedic contribution as outlined in Yamla's instructions. Let me know if I've misunderstood and you've made the sample edits somewhere else. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC) No. I did not make sample edits somewhere else. Please just show me how to do it, please. I am sick and tired of wasting my time for real. Ok? Please. You know what? Never mind. It is ok. I will wait until after two weeks in order to return to edit like before after my block will expire.[reply]

The instructions are the ones outlined in [this edit], which are:
Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
    1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
    2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
      • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}}),
      • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]),
      • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]),
      • and do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
    3. Click edit at your talk page and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
    4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
    5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include any citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
  • Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
  • When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking using {{unblock}} and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
No guarantees, but being able to follow these instructions and produce a useful proposed edit would be a good step toward convincing an admin to unblock this account. Of course if you're not willing to do all this you can indeed just wait out the block. Fair warning however that if you return to editing exactly like before there's a chance you'll get blocked again for the same reason as before. Better to aim for more verifiable and less disruptive editing, as a way of avoiding further blocks.
The choice is yours. However if you do plan to just wait out the block would you mind removing your latest unblock request? No point in having it open in the queue if you don't wish to be unblocked at this stage. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the edit that you made on the article about Joe Biden to reverse my edit because Joe Biden is the eighth-youngest senator in the United States history at the age of 30 years and 44 days after John Henry Eaton who was 28, Armistead Mason who was also 28, John Jordan Crittenden who was 29, Thomas Worthington who was also 29, Henry Clay who was also 29, Rush Holt Sr. who was 30 years and 2 days old and William Hill Wells who was 30 years and 10 days old. You need to explain your reason for your disagreement with me on this. Full stop. Mismak Abel (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden

[edit]

Hi, user with the username 331dot. I hope you are fine. I wanted to talk to you about my disagreements with your edits on the article about Joe Biden. I disagree with you on the edits that you made on the article about Joe Biden because Joe Biden was the eighth-youngest senator in the United States history at the age of 30 years and 44 days after John Henry Eaton who was 28, Armistead Mason who was also 28, John Jordan Crittenden who was 29, Thomas Worthington who was also 29, Henry Clay who was also 29, Rush Holt Sr. who was 30 years and 2 days old and William Wells who was 30 years and 10 days old. I am speaking based on the truth. Thomas Worthington was 29 when he became United States Senator from Ohio and William Wells was 30 years and 10 days old when he became United States Senator from Delaware. Explain to me why you disagree with me on this. Please explain to me clearly why you disagree with me on this. Thank you. I feel like your problem with my correct and accurate edits that you completely reversed to the point of disregarding carefulness on the way of doing things on Wikipedia is based on you not having checked the articles about Thomas Worthington and William Hill Wells. I checked them so I know what I am talking about and I know that my edits were right. Ok? I am waiting for some response from you. I don't want to engage in arguments and edit wars. I am here to have a peaceful, positive and decent conversation with you. Ok? I will wait for you to respond to me. Mismak Abel (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mismak Abel, the best place to discuss what should happen with the Biden article is at Talk:Joe Biden. I encourage you to think of ways to shorten your comment and to avoid personalizing the dispute. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks. Mismak Abel (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

September 2023

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Elizabeth II. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your wrong and false edit on Governors of Delaware

[edit]

There is exact sourcing saying Wolf was inaugurated on January 3. If you have a source that disputes that then place include it - and no, the NGA doesn't count, they are used to establish the existence of the governor but they aren't reliable for dates, which is why I source every single date individually, and your edit ignored those sources. Your edit was far more wrong and false than anything it replaced. --Golbez (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mismak_Abel&oldid=1187225007"