Jump to content

User talk:TheEncyclopediaReader

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

Welcome TheEncyclopediaReader!

Hello TheEncyclopediaReader. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Walter Görlitz, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:
  Introduction to Wikipedia
  The five pillars of Wikipedia
  Editing tutorial
  How to edit a page
  Simplified Manual of Style
  The basics of Wikicode
  How to develop an article
  How to create an article
  Help pages
  What Wikipedia is not
 Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
  Do be bold
  Do assume good faith
  Do be civil
  Do keep cool!
  Do maintain a neutral point of view
  Don't spam
  Don't infringe copyright
  Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest
  Don't commit vandalism
  Don't get blocked
If you need further help, you can:
  Ask a question
 or you can:
  Get help at the Teahouse
 or even:
  Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
  Fight vandalism
  Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome
  Help contribute to articles
  Perform maintenance tasks
            
  Become a member of a project that interests you
  Help design new templates
  Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost
  Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Please remember to:

  • Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
  • Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)[reply]

Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Golden Balance (April 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Tol were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, TheEncyclopediaReader! Having an article 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! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Golden Balance (April 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco

[edit]

PS: San Francisco is officially a combined city/county...one of only a few in the US. WQUlrich (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WQUlrich Ok, I will keep it in mind. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 00:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What to do when your edit is reverted

[edit]

So your edits are being reverted all over.....what to do? .....best to review WP:BRD...also note the WP:3RV. rule.Moxy- 02:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was just coming to say the same. I have opened a discussion on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will keep it on mind, I have to avoid making edit war and instead get consensus first, that's what I learned. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 02:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge learning curve here ...... just need to take your time research before changing content. Moxy- 02:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, before putting "publish edition" I should preview my result and see if it suits me to publish it? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 02:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Rockstone35. I noticed that you recently removed content from United States 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. Also, please don't mark edits as minor when they are not. RockstoneSend me a message! 03:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will keep it on mind, I will make more accurate edit summaries. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 03:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon 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 Scotland, 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. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt Lunker Okay, I will discuss about my edit that I intend to do in that talk page of Scotland and reach a consensus. Then you will see that I’m really interested about following policies and that I’m a decent editor. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 15:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to The Golden Balance has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

The text you entered is lifted practically word for word from [1]. As a result I have had to delete the page due to the copyright violation. Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting symbols in lists

[edit]

Please stop putting circle symbols in lists as you did here. These carry no meaning and can cause issues for accessibility and screen readers. Plain lists are perfectly fine and used on the majority of pages on Wikipedia and fields in infoboxes. Don't be tempted to condense multi-line entries to one line to make them prettier or any such, there is nothing wrong with keeping them as multi line lists. Canterbury Tail talk 18:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But my friend, adding just one line was enough to put, I intended to look simplified, but just in the countries, divisions and territories that have 2 official languages. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 18:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, that sentence didn't make any sense, I'm unsure what you're trying to say. Please don't add symbols into lists for the reasons I mentioned above, and don't condense multi-lines into single lines. Canterbury Tail talk 18:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that I wanted to avoid the 2 lines, with one line is enough like this: Filipino • English. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 18:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what I'm saying is there's no reason to avoid the two lines, having two lines is normal in infoboxes for multiple pieces of information. And putting the  • is not a standard usage on Wikipedia and can confuse screen readers and other accessibility tools. So please, stop doing so. Canterbury Tail talk 19:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm going to replace that over there, right now what I'm doing is changing the link because it's against policy, ex. English, I only have to put the language, it is according to the policy TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 19:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um you're confusing a new line and bullet point with the in the middle of a line  • that you were adding, they are not the same thing at all. The problem is you're adding  • into the middle of lines, not as bullet points at the start. Canterbury Tail talk 20:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally it seems you didn't read MOS:PIPE or WP:EASTEREGG as you're quoting them in your edit summaries quite against what they are. I quoted them for you for this edit specifically. The MOS:PIPE (which apologies should have been the next section down MOS:PIPESTYLE) applied to your changing of [[Indian Ocean]]s to [[Indian Ocean|Indian Oceans]], and the WP:EASTEREGG applied to the change from French to French, not something someone would have expected under the link. Canterbury Tail talk 20:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that edit on France I made it hours ago, now I'm replacing to just French language, that edit is even before you told me those policies of MOS:PIPE and WP:EASTEREGG TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 20:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changes across to infobox languages mass amount of articles

[edit]

You have to slow down on the mass chnages to count4ry infoboxes all over .... many of these infobox layouts come after much. discussion. pls bring any changes you would like to do to the tlak page first/--Moxy- 02:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm just obeying a policy they told me that I can't link the country's dialect as the language, it's a against MOS:PIPE and WP:EASTEREGG. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 02:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop stop stop at this point the your unlinking of main language are articles is getting disruptive. Need to bring change of languages to talk. Moxy- 02:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with that? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 02:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're changing the line about native dialects of languages to the generic article. We have articles on dialects for reason. example. Moxy- 02:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that you tell me that, what you tell me confuses me a lot: a user told me that I shouldn't link, only to language, and now you say to put the dialects, what do I do then? I put the dialect link. ex. English or just the language, what do I put then? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 02:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: Can you say where this linking to articles about national varieties has been concluded? Treating this as a new question, my reaction is (a) I could be entirely wrong but it seems doubtful that wherever Spanish is declared to be the official language of Uruguay (it isn't in their constitution, I checked), it specifically says the version of Spanish as spoken in that country; (b) if the official designation does specify that it's the national variety that's official, then the text should say that: [[Uruguayan Spanish]], not [[Uruguayan Spanish|Spanish]]; and (c) if, in fact, the designation of the official language isn't that specific, it can reasonably be supposed that if a user is clicking a link that reads "Spanish", it's because what the user is looking to read about, and expecting to find, is an article about Spanish, not an article about what distinguishes Spanish in Uruguay from Spanish in general.
You say "We have articles on dialects for reason." Yes, for reasons, but making spurious claims (or even implying them through surprise link destinations) and misleading readers aren't among those reasons. Largoplazo (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo Thank you for supporting me, a user named Canterbury Tail told me that I can confuse other users if I put the link of the dialect of a country but as just the language (ex. in the section of official languages in Scotland: [[Scottish English|English]]) Some readers when clicking on English can be confused because according to him it is not the page they expected to arrive. Additionally he told me too the policies of MOS:PIPE and WP:EASTEREGG and also told me that I don't have to make it on just one line in the section of official languages (ex. Filipino • English), because according to him it is more common to see the 2 lines and also if I put a single line it can confuse the readers, I said ok, I will apply it in my editions, as you can see I applied what that user told me in articles of countries, but some users took it like edit war and disruptive edits when I was just following a policy, hopefully this dispute with me will end. Please, I need you to help me or whoever, all I wanted is to follow a policy. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 16:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheEncyclopediaReader reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). Thank you. Moxy- 02:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

[edit]
Stop icon
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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 20 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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me, actually I was just confused this user told me here, about a policy, I said okay, I'll apply it to articles, and suddenly Moxy reversed my edits and told me the opposite and that confused me too much, I told him that I'm just obeying policies, and he also reported me , when I was just following a damn policy, Moxy is the bad guy, he does not want to realize that I am only obeying policies, and that my intention wasn’t to make disruptive edits. Please help me, I just wanted to follow policies, what just happened is that that user does not understand me, I only followed politics. And my other thing that I intended to do is adding some descriptions, such as in Kazakhstan, Kazakh and Russian are both official, but Kazakh is the national/state official and Russian is the official, and in South Africa I want to order in native speakers, first Zulu, The most spoken language in South Africa, please Peaceray, you’re the only person that I can request help, so please help me, you told me that I editted constructively, I’m saying the truth. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :). other thing, Attention users, possibly you do not understand my messages, I do my best to write in English, I will do my best to write better in English, because I admit it, I know how to speak English very well but I do not know how to write it well, because I use a translator . 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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.

A helpful hint: You're going to have to satisfy an administrator not of your sound reasoning as to your edit (even though I agree with that reasoning) but of your understanding that edit warring is not how to deal with the situation when somebody else disagrees with you, even though somebody else told you something else. You'll need to indicate your understanding of your obligation to move the disagreement into a discussion while leaving the articles alone, and attempting to achieve consensus before proceeding. You speak of obeying policy; well, this is also policy. Largoplazo (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Te revelo que soy hispanohablante, ya posiblemente hablas español: ¿Quieres decir que también sería una obligación llegar a un consenso primero? Como no lo había pensado antes, lo que quería es agregar una descripción, como en Sudáfrica, quería especificar, ordené los idiomas por orden de hablantes nativos, primero puse zulú, porque es el mas hablado, pero bueno, cuando sepa usar mejor las palabras en inglés y cuando me desbloqueen lo primero que haré es llegar a un consenso. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 21:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For no-Spanish speaking people I translate this message: I reveal to you that I am a Spanish speaker, and possibly you already speak Spanish: Do you mean that it would also be an obligation to reach a consensus first? Since I hadn't thought about it before, what I wanted is to add a description, as in South Africa, I wanted to specify, I ordered the languages ​​in order of native speakers, I put Zulu first, because it is the most widely spoken, but well, when you know how to use words better in English and when they unlock me the first thing I will do is reach a consensus TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 21:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As this is English Wikipedia (and as English is my native language; despite my random choice of user name when I was choosing one, I get along in Spanish but am not fluent, no lo escribo con fluidez), we should converse here in English. You don't need consensus for every change—but when someone disagrees with you, then it's time to start a discussion on the Talk page rather than arguing back and forth in edit summaries. There are exceptions when the other person is committing clear acts of vandalism, but that wasn't the case here.
User:Moxy, on the other hand, could have chosen a different approach once you explained that you thought you were following policy. Moxy, as the experienced editor, could have taken the initiative to begin a talk page discussion (because it's not as though the replacement of the link to Uruguayan Spanish was causing untold, irreparable damage to the article that had to be rectified immediately) and, if either he thought what you'd been told was wrong, or if he thought they were generally correct but that there were other guidelines that overrode them in this situation, then he could have taken the time to spell that out in detail rather than contributing to the war. (Note: Perhaps Moxy did do this elsewhere, in some wing of your interactions that I haven't seen. My comments here are based only on what I've seen of the interactions between the two of you.) Largoplazo (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I explained to them what was needed or should I say expected of them when reverted by multiple editors across multiple articles ...even pinged them multiple times to multiple talks about the edits.. ..to no avail. Wp:Competence is the real concern here. Moxy- 23:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry I won’t do that, even if the decline answer seems unfair to me. Other thing, I reverted the decline because Daniel just put “per below”, is not a It is not a valid reason from my point of view. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 15:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chhattisgarh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only wanted to follow a policy and additionally I wanted to add a description, but the only thing that happened is that I got confused

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me, look that I just wanted to follow a policy and also add some description in articles, but it happened that it was a misunderstanding with me in the start and in the final of this problem, and I admit it, I'm sorry, I got confused. This dispute with me started when I started editing in country articles (This was the first misunderstanding with me), the two things that I edited are: First the edit that I made was changing the quantity of lines when it comes to a country or territory having only 2 official languages I put it like this for example: Filipino • English, and the other one is that I changed the link of the official languages ​​of a country to the dialect of the country, but only as the language, like this French, but the user named Canterbury Tail explained me that I wasn't editing properly, first he told me that the two lines are more common to see, putting one line can confuse readers, and in the second he told me that I can't link a dialect of a country just as the language, it's against MOS:PIPE and WP:EASTER EGG, I said Ok and I replied him that right now I'm gonna apply it in the articles, the problem arises when Moxy reverted all my edits that I made since Canterbury told me that, and he told me on my talk page to stop doing those disruptive edits, when he was just following a policy, he even reverted edits on pages he had edited from some time ago like Canada, Kazakhstan, Scotland and South Africa, I explained it to him and he followed me without understanding me, so I kept making those edits, but it happened that he reported me in WP:ANEW because I was supposedly doing a war of editions in the article Canada, which is an article that he edited a time ago, when I just wanted to fix something there, and the worst thing is that Canterbury Tail was on his side when he himself taught me those policies and as you know I applied it in articles, I don't know why he bothered, just applied what he taught me, that's all. During that dispute with me in that noticeboard I commited my second misunderstanding with me (As I told in the final of this problem), my second misunderstanding it was that during that dispute I saw that my edits that I made days ago in the pages Kazakhstan, Scotland and South Africa, it reverted automatically when I made multiple edits in articles applying that, I wanted to put those editions back, but they told me "no, you're making disruptive editions" when I just added a description, in Scotland I just wanted to recover my references made in that page, but Matt Lunker saw that my edits were not constructive, when I was just recovering my valid references, in South Africa I wanted to order the official languages ​​by native languages because according to a statistics Zulu is the more spoken language, I even wanted to ask for consensus on the discussion page of the South African page, explaining what I wanted to edit accompanied by an anecdote, but user AndyTheGrump told me that I'm speaking gibberish, but it wasn't gibberish (It's just that I speak Spanish, but I'm trying my best in write in English), after that comment continue editing in South Africa explaining my edit, but again they told me that I'm a disruptive editor, even I saw that the user EuKoketsolion thanked my edit, thanks euko. So please unblock me, I just wanted to follow a policy, I want to keep doing those edits, but forgive me for those 2 misunderstandings, You can unblock me, I just wanted to follow a policy, but I commited to mistakes. Even please let me retrieve my edits in Scotland, South Africa, Kazakhstan and Singapore, I just wanted to do a few things there, Like for example in Kazakhstan correcting the status of Russian, in Scotland I recovered my references, and in South Africa and Singapore I recovered the languages by native speakers but following that policy, I didn't want to make disruptive edits there in the second misunderstanding I had. even please let me retrieve my edits in Scotland, South Africa, Kazakhstan and Singapore, I just wanted to do a few things there, Like for example in Kazakhstan correcting the status of Russian, in Scotland recovering my references, and in South Africa and Singapore ordering the languages by native speakers but following that policy, I didn't want to make disruptive edits there in the second misunderstanding I had. Sorry for the first misunderstanding that I had, but in the second you guys misunderstood what I did, I just wanted to add description. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 00:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring, and nothing in here suggests you realize how disruptive that is. You were also blocked for a lack of competence, and I do not see anything in here to make me think that we were wrong. I would suggest, for starters, that writing HUGE unblock requests in a single paragraph is not a good way to get people to understand you. But even if they jump that hurdle, there needs to be more that properly addresses the problems. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 24 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.

@Drmies Ok, I start to understand that my way of “following policies” it wasn’t adequate, especially keeping edits in Canada and South Africa. Sorry, I just wanted to follow policies but I didn't realize how disruptive it was, please excuse me, so please I want you to change or someone change my blocking settings, I don't want to be blocked forever, at least a few more days, They will be enough for me to better prepare myself for when one day I will be unlocked. I will also do my best to keep my explanations short and to the point, NOT too long, because as you said, it could not be understood and it could even bore the others. When I am unblocked I will not making the same edits that I had been doing in the Canada and South Africa page until I reach consensus, because as they said before I was blocked precisely for making edit war on that page. So please, change my blocking settings for a few days instead of forever, look I already recognized that what I did was wrong, I deserve a punishment for what I did, a few days will be enough to reflect. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 02:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand the real reason why I was blocked, so please, I want to be unblocked, I learned my lesson

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, please unblock me, now I understand the reason I was blocked, I wasn't following policies properly, please excuse me that I did not realize that while I edited articles with the reason of following policies I didn't realize I was going to make edit war in so many articles. But now I reflected and I see the reason why I was actually blocked: Edit warring in articles and also lack of competence, now I understand, I promise you that when I will be unblocked I will not continue with the same edits that I had been doing in that articles that led to this block, what I will do is first get consensus on the talk pages of those, also I promise that I will do my best to keep my explanations or comments short and to the point, NOT too long, because as Drmies said, it could not be understood and it could even bore the others, that is lack of competition, now I understand, I only wanted to apply that Canterbury teached me to the articles of countries and territories where I have applied what I learned (Applying in that articles the policies of MOS:PIPE and WP:EASTEREGG and also avoiding 1 line when it comes to 2 official languages, he told me that two lines are more common). So please, look that I already understood the real reason why I was blocked, so, I don’t need this block anymore. And also just in case, I founded that in this request there was so unconvincing and also unnecessary things so I decided to remove it. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 17:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 2 June 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 reply is concerning and frankly hard to understand..... are you saying you intend to re-implement all the edits that were revert by 5 editors but the 2 articles listed above? Moxy- 21:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, Yes, except in Canada and South Africa because I was blocked mainly for doing edit war on those 2 pages (I mean, I won't make the same edits until I reach a consensus on the talk pages, but I promise that when I say there what I intend to edit it will be short but understandable), but on the other pages I will continue because there really is if I applied what I learned, but I must admit that in Canada and South Africa I was not following politics properly, I didn't realize what was going to happen to me if I did edit war on those 2 articles. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 22:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So wait, you’re saying you’re going to redo the edits that were reverted by editors on the other articles? Just asking again for clarity. Canterbury Tail talk 22:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If your intent is to re implement the edits that were reverted by multiple people then you don't understand why you were blocked in the first place..... it seems to be mainly about competency. Moxy- 22:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No Canterbury, you are not understanding me, I'm going to apply what do you teached me in that articles except in the articles of Canada and South Africa, you yourself taught me those 2 things, and I wanted to apply them in articles, but as I said I promised that I will not do it on the Canada and South Africa pages until I reach a consensus in that talk pages because as you know I was blocked for doing edit war on those pages, I mean I will not keep making the same edits in Canada and South Africa until I reach consensus, I hope it is clear to you. Just in case, I almost re-writed this request to be not valid and more convincing. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 22:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant by "Competence is required"? Moxy- 22:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy, it means like the ability of reaching consensus, the ability of knowing communicate with other users in this Wikipedia in English, and understand errors, in this case now I reflected and I promise that I will be better and when I put comments it will be shorter but understandable, if I put an extremely large text the users cannot understand me. And also I promised that when I will get unblocked I will not keep making the same edits in Canada and South Africa until I reach consensus, my messages will be short but clear. That it will be competence. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 22:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that your edits were reverted in many other articles that weren't Canada and South Africa yes? If you were to reinstate those edits (in articles other than Canada and South Africa), that multiple other editors have removed for a multitude of reasons, what would that mean? Is it acceptable, under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, for you to redo those edits as you mentioned above? Canterbury Tail talk 00:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because you yourself taught me the policies of MOS:PIPE and WP:EASTEREGG, I applied it in multiple articles, and I don't understand why you don't approve me, I only apply what YOU taught me. (Just in case I understand why you didn't specifically approve me in Canada and South Africa, only in those 2 articles I wasn't applying it properly) TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 00:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody told you that if other people object (regardless of the advice that one person may have given you that your edits would be correct), then you just reinstate your edits again and again and again, even if they were correct. The point is that you have to turn to the Talk page and get a consensus there agreeing with you that they were correct.
And the fact that your edit warring on two articles led to you being blocked doesn't mean those are the only articles you can't edit-war over. You can't edit-war over any articles. But everything you've said above gives the impression that you think that only those two articles are forbidden to you when you decide to edit-war.
You Are Not Allowed To Edit-War. Explaining for the fifty-seventh time why you were edit-warring does not convince anybody (a) that you understand what edit warring is, (b) that you understand that edit warring is not allowed, and (c) that you will stop doing it. If you don't convince anybody of those things, you won't be unblocked. Largoplazo (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know buddy you’re right, after you told me your last message I decided to reflect a little bit and I founded that I didn’t made edit war just in Canada and South Africa, in so many articles and I admit it and sorry guys, I just wanted to follow a policy. You were right Largoplazo, Moxy is another experienced editor and have another point of view than Canterbury Tail, you know something, I have to make another but more appropriate unblock request, admiting my errors and promise not to edit the same thing on those articles until I reach a consensus. I would do it now, but there is already another request and I am going to wait for them to answer it. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 04:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, please learn to WP:INDENT your posts. Second, as long as no administrator as responded to your current unblock request, you can change it. Repeated - and unfortunately very similar requests - will lead to you losing access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Largoplazo, if you know that right now I made my request smaller and more understandable, and I also put that I already understood that I was not only doing edit war only in Canada and South Africa, in many articles. Possibly so they can unblock me, because I already admitted that I did not only do it in 2 articles, in many, let's do something, read that request and see if you can understand it or not? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 13:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other thing Canterbury Tail, Since I understand why I was blocked, explain to me why you got angry when I edited in many articles from countries, I only applied what you yourself taught me, and by the way you put yourself in favor of them, it's confusing, TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 13:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pinging me, it's unnecessary. Canterbury Tail talk 14:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sorry, but at least can you answer my question to you? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 15:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

[edit]

Hello, you are taking a long time to answer, it's been 2 days without answer so please any administrator answer me. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 17:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not e-mail me again.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 But what did I do to you? I'm just letting you know something, that's all. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 02:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an administrator, however...

[edit]

Hello there! I noticed this on Special:RecentChanges, and though I am not an administrator, I would like to give you the standard offer. What this consists of is the following:

A) Go 6 months without editing on WP,

B) After 6 months are up (if you still have talk page access) request unblock here,

C) Prove to administrators that you understand why you were blocked, and promise that you will not do what you did then,

D) Prove to them that you also have done many constructive edits on another Wiki (I suggest the Simple English Wikipedia.

That is all. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fakescientist8000 Thank you friend for trying to help me, I really appreciate it. I have some questions: If I want to be unlocked, do I have to admit that I made disruptive edits? If I already recognized it above, but if I already recognized it above, but an administrator does not answer me yet, I want him to answer me. And my other question is that I must prove that my contributions are constructive in Simple Wikipedia? Make them see that my intention was not bad, is that what you mean? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 14:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I mean. The last thing you want when unblocking is to either violate WP:CIVIL, make it look like you were editing in bad faith, or both. You can send them your contributions page on the Simple English Wikipedia (SEWP, going forward) in order to show them that you, in fact, can edit constructively here and should be unbanned. You also don't want to edit, like, twice on SEWP, you want a sizeable and decent track record that you can then show to an admin here.
Here is the main page of SEWP. I hope you enjoy it there, and best wishes to you editing.
(P.S. I also edit on SEWP from time to time, so if you see me there, don't be afraid to say hi/ask any questions.) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean violate WP:CIVIL? What do you mean? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 15:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL is a policy on Wikipedia that basically says you shouldn't attack people/harass them/make them feel bad or uncomfortable. It's an incredibly good policy that has helped keep a lot of bad people from being on here. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, if you want you can see my history and you will see that I did not make personal attacks, you do not know how much I hope that this dispute with me ends and everything returns to normal TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 18:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest heading to SEWP immediately, in that case. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fakescientist8000 for mentoring! EncyclopediaReader, you need to identify how your editing was disruptive and describe how you will edit not disruptively. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #58329

[edit]

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I finally understand why I was actually blocked

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I took some time to reflect, and now if I really understand the reason why I was blocked, what really happened is that if I was doing edit war, the edit war that I was doing on the page Canada revealed that if I was doing edit war not only on this page, but too many articles of geography, and also it said "I'M JUST FOLLOWING POLICIES", but I realized that I wasn't following "policies" properly, and I also lacked competence because I already understood that during the dispute on the bulletin board where Moxy reported me I took the opportunity to obtain consensus on the discussion page of the article South Africa, but I only wrote confusing things , AndyTheGrump was right, at that time I lacked the ability to write well in English, So please forgive me and unblock me, look I already understood the reason why I was really blocked, I promise that when they unblock me I will get a consensus on the talk pages in the articles where I was applying what Canterbury Tail taught me, but this time I will do it right and I will say on those talk pages what i intend to edit. I hope that if they listen to my request and unblock me, I already promised to edit better and I will get consensus first on those pages, ex. Canada, South Africa, Brazil, all the pages that I edit are in my contributions, those I will not edit that led me to the block before editing them. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 18:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think your best pathway forward here is the standard offer, as suggested above. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 2 June 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.

.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheEncyclopediaReader&oldid=1099640284"