User talk:Mysteronfax

Welcome!

Hi Mysteronfax! 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

Happy editing! --🐦DrWho42👻 23:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Jerome Sinclair, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the edits were very constructive and don’t breach any policies or guidelines so I will be defending my right to have input on this page Mysteronfax (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jerome Sinclair. 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. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They just aren’t disruptive. It’s a factual statement with notable information so your reversion of my info will be reverted Mysteronfax (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jerome Sinclair 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. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All i did was add notable info into his wiki, your lot who disagree are starting the "edit war" get a grip and leave the info in as there is absolutely nothing wrong with and no reason why it shouldnt be added. This is a community site and i am using that to add more notable info to him than there was previously i am doing absolutely nothing wrong Mysteronfax (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CONSENSUS. There is an overwhelming consensus among all involved editors other than yourself and one other (who began editing at the exact same time) that while this information should certainly be mentioned in the article, it does not merit inclusion in the opening sentence. Please respect this consensus -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 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).

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

Request reason:

I can assure you that I am not using multiple accounts If it is believed I have then it is a misunderstanding or coincidence with another account. However I can guarentee to you that i have this singular account and that is all

Decline reason:

I'm not convinced. Even if I was convinced, though, your history of inappropriate editing makes it hard to justify lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 13:20, 19 January 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.