User talk:Morbius

Hello, Morbius, 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! KylieTastic (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Concern regarding Draft:Elena Yerevan

Hello, Morbius. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Elena Yerevan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elena Yerevan (November 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Elena Yerevan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Morbius! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Get consensus before making significant changes

Hello. I suggest you start a discussion at Talk:Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana or Wikipedia talk:Record charts before replacing individual citations with an overall one on Italy's number-one lists. If the dates are "wrong", you can fix those without replacing the citations with an overall one. Besides, 2022 and 2023's lists use weeks in the first column, not dates, so what you changed those for I don't know. Do not make this edit again unless you have consensus with other editors or I will bring this to the attention of an administrator because you will have disregarded WP:BRD. This is much too significant a change and less beneficial for readers to do. Also, don't propose a change and then several minutes later mark your own thread as "Done" like you were fulfilling your own request. That's not what that template is meant to be used for. Why did you say "the reference is unique for each row" then remove each unique citation? What? Ss112 16:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Ss112, I got proofs, so I don't need any consent by anyone! Read the methodological note FIRST before making any changes or YOU will have reported! --Morbius (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't edit logged out either [1]. The citations are not all the same whatsoever. Ss112 16:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Editor is edit warring and editing logged out

@Sergecross73: Hi Serge. This editor made huge changes by replacing individual citations with one overall citation on each Italy number-one list of the last few years, and also edited logged out [2]. Now they are edit warring, claiming they don't need "any consent by anyone" because they have "proofs" [3]. I don't think I can convince this editor not to edit war so I'm informing you. Ss112 17:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@SS112: Issue dates are ALL WRONG because they actually represent the first day of the weekly tracking periods for sales! I already explained that in every edited-page talk but despite the fact I quoted the main source you reverted my whole work with no discussion. You don't need to quote every single chart page if I can reach them simply choosing the year and clicking possibly the link of singles tab, because too many references are dispersive and in some years those pages will disappear; the archive page will not! Be clear to everyone: I didn't mean to hide myself editing few pages as an anonymous but you are clearly in BAD FAITH, ITALIAN BOY! YOU FIRST WANTED THE WAR, NOT ME! --Morbius (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"Too many references"? There's one each for the album and single chart every week of the year, as there should be. That is not "too many". Direct links are more helpful than one overall one where you're telling readers to navigate to the individual chart pages themselves. Readers can't tell from the archive alone what the album or single is called. Sure, some of the dates might need adjustment, but you also changed this on pages like 2022 and 2023 where the date isn't even present. It doesn't need to be and your change was not beneficial on them. Whatever the case, you're not going to be unblocked with that attitude. "Italian boy"? I'm not Italian lol. The editor who reverts again after their bold edit was reverted started the edit war, and that was you. Ss112 14:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Surfing on FIMI website is extremely simple, so a single source is enough and other editors won't be forced to add a new reference updating every week a direct link that after few years it would be broken in any case (the archive will kept instead). You talk as Italian chart pages were managed only by you and other editors have to wait for your approval before to change something; if I proved that changes are right quoting a source (no one disputed it so far) why should I wait for other editors' consensus? If so no one could edit something if it had not open a talk first. This would be absurd! ALL DATES need adjustments, not just some of them because they have to be postponed by a week on the following Friday (or Monday in some periods) if this is not an Italian holiday. If dates on pages like 2022 and 2023 are not present you must add them as you did in the past, otherwise, if the community consider this info useless, remove them on all pages! In my opinion (right) dates are fundamental! I already know how my attitude is such as Italian WP administrators know, so I'm not going to change it just for you all; and if that means I have to get blocked then so be it. Sorry but you didn't have any rights to revert my proved changes, so YOU WANTED THE WAR! --Morbius (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Morbius, the next time you use your talk page to continue arguing about this, you will have your talk page access revoked. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 23:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If I'm not allowed to use it why THE FUCK didn't you revoke it sooner! --Morbius (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand you can't reply now but for posterity: It doesn't matter how "simple" the website is. I'm the one who updates the article every week, so nobody is being "forced" to do anything. You primarily changed lists of previous years—so "other editors being forced to add a new reference every week" is not a valid concern if it's in the past. I didn't say every editor who wants to edit the article needs my approval, but I started most of those pages, and you made bold edits on them, which I disputed. I had every right to dispute your changes. You also keep saying your edits were "proved", but it is irrelevant that your edits were sourced. You refused to start a discussion seeking consensus from other members of the community for your changes after they were disputed, which is how Wikipedia deals with differences in opinion regarding article content. You're still suggesting that I ever said editors in general need to propose a change on the talk page first before ever editing when I didn't, so it appears you either cannot or refuse to get that you need to propose a change on the talk page when your edits are disputed, which I think is a pretty simple concept. I don't think Wikipedia is for you. Ss112 14:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Anyone is free to make WP:BOLD edits, but as soon as your edits are contested by others, you need to stop making them, start a discussion on the talk page, and only make the changes if there is a WP:CONSENSUS to do so.

There's...pretty clearly someone who objects to your large changes, so you really need to stop immediately and start working with them and the rest of the community very quickly if you want to avoid being blocked form editing. Slow down and talk this out. Contact a WP:WIKIPROJECT neutrally for further input if you need to break a stalemate. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: They're still reverting. This clearly won't stop. I've reported them at WP:ANV. Edit warring with others now: [4] Ss112 17:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Your recent editing history at List of number-one hits of 2017 (Italy) 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. Ss112 17:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You were told above the exact steps to take, but ignored them. The block is of course indefinite, not infinite, but you must promise to start behaving collaboratively if you'd like to be unblocked. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been always collaborative with whom collaborated with me, not with whom reverted my work with no valid reason or preventive discussion. I also don't need to beg anyone for the useful and free work I do. Morbius (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why are you telling I started the edit war if I only made important changes with a UNIQUE and ESSENTIAL source removing WRONG and scattered info? The war was actually started by Ss112.

Decline reason:

It's not relevant who started the edit war. Yamla (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

It's not relevant who started the edit war?! REALLY? So why didn't you block Ss112 too??? To make a war it takes at least two! --Morbius (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

1) The burden is on you to stop and get a consensus that supports your change because you're the person implementing a change in content and 2) Multiple editors opposed your change. And I had just notified you to stop, and you completely ignored me. Sergecross73 msg me 21:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

1) I don't need a consensus if I proved my changes. 2) Editors opposed my changes without neither checking them and the source I quoted! 3) Who are you for telling me to stop without a valid reason?!? --Morbius (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You are fundamentally incorrect. You are literally blocked because you repeatedly edit warred without a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not me to be incorrect since you intimated me to stop reverting my proved changes and you're keeping on accusing me of a war that I didn't start! --Morbius (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You made changes. Someone objected. You did not stop. You made the changes again without discussion. That is why you're blocked. I can't say it any simpler than that. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I made changes I PROVED so it's not me to stop undoing since someone else didn't agree and talks were already opened for POSSIBLE edits! --Morbius (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to include that in your unblock requests and see where it gets you. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm not going to waste furtherly my precious time for a failed project like Wikipedia! So keep on supporting 17 year old users!--Morbius (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Who's 17, you or I? If you meant me, I've been on Wikipedia since 2006. Was I editing the same year as I was born? Wild. Ss112 14:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you decide to make any further unblock requests please read WP:NOTTHEM first. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 03:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I simply made important changes quoting another important source that proved them, so I need to justify NOTHING else! On the contrary someone else who reverted my edits needed but on the talks I opened. When I added DONE to them is just for warning other users to not longer care about talks because edits had been DONE yet, not for searching any consensus I didn't need! You all are focussing on the finger pointing a way to the moon and not rather on the moon because NO ONE, except Ss112, objected the content I edited so far. I wish to say to him that no rule exists that forbids to edit as an anonymous and if I did sometimes that has been DONE not for hiding myself! --Morbius (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You can say that as many times as you want, it doesn't make it true. That's simply not how it works. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment). Use an unblock request to convince the reviewing administrator(s), that you won't repeat the same behaviour again, using the talk page for other actions while blocked isn't likely to get you anywhere and talk page access may be removed if deemed appropriate. Your best option is to explain fully and clearly what you would do if unblocked and how you would deal with disputes instead of causing disruption in your request. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 21:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 23:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)