User talk:Nobody698

July 2021

Hello, I'm Drchriswilliams. I noticed that you recently removed content from 1997 Scottish devolution referendum without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content removed is unrelated to the topic. Nobody698 (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not related* Nobody698 (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at QWERTY. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I am not doing vandalism, I just delete unnecessary content, Romanian automatically means that it is in Romania and Moldova. Nobody698 (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, at potassium iodide, someone could help you figure out how to accomplish your goal without a side effect of losing the molecular weight for readers. DMacks (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Hi! I've noticed that you've made some edits that other editors have reverted. You then re-applied the same edit again. When you get reverted by an experienced editor it probably means you did something wrong. Re-applying the same change just means it get reverted yet again. But experienced editors aren't perfect and can also make mistakes. So what you do is to start a discussion on the article's talk page and explain why you think your edit was good. The editor that reverted it can then explain their view. As a new editor, the majority of the time it will be explaining to you some less than obvious quirk of Wikipedia. But sometimes you might be right. Experience editors usually listen to reason. The process is summed up at WP:BRD. Stepho talk 10:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nobody698 (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Toyota Land Cruiser Prado. 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. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Toyota Fortuner, you may be blocked from editing. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CARPIX

Remember, it's not necessary to use the latest model as the lead image rather than the old model. Sometimes you use the same image that is already found in the article. I almost reported you at the WP:AN/I for these actions you've done if you didn't edit war. Stepho-wrs already reminded you about this. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that there are existing examples of using the same image twice in an article, as in Land Cruiser Prado, if you think it is a mistake, don't blame me as I'm not responsible for that content. Nobody698 (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even I made mistakes, most vehicle-related articles still use the old model as the lead photo rather than the latest model. Would you agree if consider bringing back the former instead of the latter as the lead photo? VictorTorres2002 (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I disagree you with this. There are plenty of articles using the latest model as the lead image, as in BMW X3, BMW X5, Mercedes-Benz GLS-Class and Toyota Highlander. Nobody698 (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay for me then though some editors may disagree with this but its okay. Hopefully no more edit-warring can occur again after this consensus. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nobody698 (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages without consensus

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i am just correcting spelling mistakes, what problem I have? Nobody698 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass spelling changes without consensus

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't my block will be expired in 16:38 April 18? But why I was suddenly autoblocked (I didn't do anything as I was blocked). Please help. Nobody698 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Nobody698 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Nobody698 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Nobody698". The reason given for Nobody698's block is: "Disruptive editing: too many warnings about spelling changes".

Blocking administrator: ‪Ohnoitsjamie‬ (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: That's weird. I don't understand why you're autoblocked by your own account. Well, the autoblock should be lifted now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody698 (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2022 (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).

Nobody698 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Cyrillic с is always transliterated as s, not ss. I am just correcting the mistake of that article. How come you blocked me and deem my editing disruptive? Nobody698 (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You must respond to the concerns of other editors and provide sources to support your claims. The many warnings you have been given show that you don't do that. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 17 April 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.

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).

Nobody698 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This article shows that my spelling is right and so my editing is not destructive and doesn't deserve a blocking. Nobody698 (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, it really doesn't. Finding just a single source is nowhere near sufficient. Please show where you obtained consensus for your change. Nor is this (the single instance of spelling) the only concern here, not by a very long shot. Yamla (talk) 10:40, 17 April 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.

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).

Nobody698 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have more source to support my spelling change. New York Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Interfax and RFE/FL all uses the spelling "Masimov" instead of "Massimov". So I think there is a consensus that "Masimov" is a better spelling than "Massimov". The rationale behind this is very simple. His name in Kazakh is "Мәсімов", not "Мәссімов", there is only one 'c' in his name and so it is "Masimov" in English. I hope my explanation is clear enough and you can understand my position. Nobody698 (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. You are refusing to address what has been pointed out several times already ... that it was not the spelling change, but the lack of consensus you had for it.

And as for you not getting many warnings, maybe they weren't all for this but the top of this page tells a different story.

Just let this block run out. Were there more time on it, I might well be advising the admin who reviews your next request to revoke access to this page since these conversations have become counterproductive as you seemingly refuse to get the point and continue to argue about why you were blocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 18 April 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.

Nobody698 (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As previously noted, the spelling issue is not the only issue here. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the reason of blocking me is the spelling issue. So if the spelling has a consensus, then what is the rational behind my blocking? And, is that not responding to other editors' concerns a problem serious enough to block me? Last but not least, "many warnings" is a false claim. I did not receive "many" warnings prior being blocked. Nobody698 (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can help a little. Wikipedia is a community effort. Which means we work as a community, not as individuals. If you make a change and it gets reverted, then somebody disagrees with your change. Either you were wrong or the reverter was wrong. You probably think your change was right, so you apply your change again. The reverter also thinks he is right, so he reverts you again. Repeat until one of you gets tired or is banned. This is not good. Instead, we have a guide WP:BRD that says make a bold edit, somebody reverts it, then discuss it on the talk page. The discussion allows you to find out who is wrong. Sometimes you learn something. Sometimes you teach the other guy something. Sometimes other members of the community add points. Sometimes both forms of the spelling are correct (non-English names often have multiple forms when translated to English). When both forms are correct then we normally leave the article in the previous state - but maybe add a short sentence to list alternative spellings. The emphasis is on community working together. Stepho talk 23:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AA2 advisory

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]