User talk:The Blue Rider/Archive 3

Trying to learn about vital articles, is there a good source for what qualities for inclusion?

Hello,

I see you're involved on the vital articles. I've been trying to learn these backend parts of Wikipedia, and was wondering if there is any good essays on what qualifies for inclusion in each level? I'm struggling to see a strong pattern, as I originally thought it was similar to the catalog trees, but that clearly isn't the case.

I have posted the articles on the 4 and 5 vital article talk pages as you suggested.

Thank you for your time and help! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I standardized your proposals into WP:VA's format, don't forget to support them as nominator! There's a FAQ that might be helpful, Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions#What makes an article "vital"?. There's also a scientific study on the project, their conclusions were as follow:

Criteria used by Vital articles contributors to justify an article's priority.
Importance Criterion	Example Quote
Everyday Significance	"An activity [sleep] that takes up 1/3 of your lifetime seems to be pretty vital to me."
Cultural Significance	"Sports have in some form been a part of the vast majority of cultures for much of there history."
Historical Significance	"The concept [bourgeoisie] has had a massive role in human history."
Enduring Significance	"The repercussions [of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic] will be felt for many decades, at the very least."
Breadth	"Folklore is the broader and more fundamental article [compared to Myth]."
Global Criterion	Example Quote
Balance	"If sport receives enough support then I think we should add an almost equivalent female dominated activity to balance things out (maybe dance)."
Non-redundancy	"Everything on Earth is covered by Earth, and everything beyond Earth is of interest pretty much only for astronomy, which is covered by Science."
Completeness	"The only type of activism we lack is women's rights - of which i would support Emmeline Pankhurst."

The Blue Rider 17:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fork-tailed drongo at GAN

Hi, a human here. Not sure what the GA bot is up to, maybe it's away for the weekend. My review is at Talk:Fork-tailed drongo/GA2. I suggest you update the article's talk page (GA stuff to a Status history) as the bot will go wrong again if we get to the stage where I pass it while there's a failure notice on the talk page - you'd get another failure notice, which isn't too nice really. Anyway, my comments are now ready and waiting for your attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Fork-tailed drongo

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fork-tailed drongo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on Wikipedia:Vital articles

		The Vital Articles Barnstar
		Thanks for your help in getting familiar with the procedures in WP:VA, as well as correcting my mistakes there. I see you're very active on that project and wanted to give you a broad general thanks for that as well! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madoff

Why did you archive my Bernie Madoff proposal after only 30 minutes? Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the rationale provided for the closing (Bernie is already listed). The Blue Rider

20:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I look stupid now, I didn't see him under white collar crime so I assumed he wasn't on the list, thanks for the help Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, it happens sometimes. The Blue Rider

20:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Fork-tailed drongo

The article Fork-tailed drongo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fork-tailed drongo for comments about the article, and Talk:Fork-tailed drongo/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguardism

Please engage in discussion on the Vanguardism talk page. You don't seem to be trying and instead are resorting to edit warring. You are the only editor on the page who has endorsed the Frankfurt school section. One editor removed your unsourced claims, you added it back still without a citation, then another editor requested a citation and you added a citation that doesn't say anything about vanguardism. Please discuss. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GAN for "Not Strong Enough"

Hi Blue Rider – immense thanks for picking up the article for review. It's the first GAN I've ever submitted (not counting a drive-by from when I was very young and inexperienced), and I hope you enjoy reading and reviewing it as much as I've enjoyed writing it! Worse comes to worst, I look forward to any feedback you may have that can help me improve the article further, especially since I hope to eventually take it to FA. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 16:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Fork-tailed drongo

On 5 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fork-tailed drongo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the fork-tailed drongo gives genuine alarm calls but will sometimes lie to steal food from other animals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fork-tailed drongo. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fork-tailed drongo), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

Sammi Brie (submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
Generalissima (submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
SounderBruce (submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
Tamzin (submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
Kusma (submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Contest has now begun!

The Core Contest has now begun! Evaluate your article's current state, gather sources, and have at it! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes; although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue work on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings and their prizes. Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Tamara

Here are some suggestions for improvement of the Tamara (given name) article:

There appear to be many languages that have the name Tamara, maybe this can be reflected in the lead and infobox instead of singling out three languages; or it should be made clear somewhere in the article why these three are singled out
For some languages the native script is included for the origin word, but this is not done consistently
Not all names mentioned in the Etymology section are included in infobox, is there a reason behind this?
In the list of names: I think each line should have just one blue link per WP:DABSTYLE
In the list of names: some descriptions can be shortened
In the list of names: for nine persons the birth year was added, maybe add them for all or none?
In the list of names: the selection of names seems quite incomplete briefly looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Tamara; is there a selection criterion? if so maybe this can be added to the section.

Success with the article! — Editør (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the suggestions! I have incorporated all of them apart from the last one, which I am too lazy to do it as of now. The Blue Rider

18:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connected your old username for the GAN tool

I've connected your old username to your current user name; the GAN tool should now give you combined results. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Contest is halfway through!

Hello Core Contest participants, we've officially hit the halfway mark! With just over three weeks remaining until the May 31 deadline (23:59 UTC), it's time to ramp up our efforts. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be edited!

Now is a good time to set goals for your article: What section needs the most improvement? Which sources remain unused? How can you best spend your time? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Women in Green GA Editathon June 2024 - Going Back in Time

Hello The Blue Rider:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in June 2024!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Going Back in Time! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 20 centuries by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 Core Contest has ended!

The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Talk:Federalist No. 8/GA1

Mind if I take over? 48JCL TALK 02:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to review it this weekend. The Blue Rider

04:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’ll help you finish the source review and then I’ll leave. 48JCL TALK 16:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of José María Gil Tamayo

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article José María Gil Tamayo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SnowFire -- SnowFire (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fork-tailed drongo

You reverted my edit of the infobox image. The image you have reinstated has several weaknesses: the image is blurred; the feathers are worn; the diagnostic shape of the tail is not clear; the background is cluttered. Will you look again please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and can you please explain what is "promotional" about that image? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You have gotten a new ally in your editing! Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Fiona

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fiona you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green's "Around the World in 31 Days" GA Editathon – October 2024

Hello The Blue Rider:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) & Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating at GAN

I removed your renomination because you did it incorrectly. You're free to renominate, but as I said in the edit summary, please don't do it by putting an old nomination back in place; follow the instructions. If you don't the result is errors both appearing on the GAN page and in the GAN bot's reports, which means you are making work for someone else. I'm going to revert you again; please this time follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I to renominate correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Tamara (name). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Since your intended change seems correct, I'm going to go ahead and implement it myself. The above notice is primarily for your information for future page moves. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara

Where are you trying to move Tamara to, and why are you doing it? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was using the move tool but it is not working so I was doing troubleshooting. I am trying to move to Tamara (name) per WP:CONCISE. The Blue Rider

23:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is the move tool not working? Also, Tamara (name), being a set index about a name, complies with WP:CONCISE. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to move Tamara (given name) to Tamara (name), it gives me an error saying that the page already exists. The Blue Rider

00:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a feature, not a bug. Besides, Hyphenation Expert already reverted a similar edit of yours per MOS:APO. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but MOS:APO is a WikiProject essay and WP:CONCISE is a Wikipedia policy... The Blue Rider

15:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Fiona

The article Fiona you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Fiona and Talk:Fiona/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Blue Rider. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Lol, are you serious? I made that edit on my phone and just forgot to log in. It wasn’t intentional sockpuppetry. I clearly wasn’t trying to violate WP:LOUTSOCK—it was obvious it was me. The Blue Rider 18:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This block had already expired. You can file a new appeal for your current block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Izno can you please reconsider, it was clearly accidental, I thought I was logged in on my mobile phone. I was not sockpupping on purpose. At least block me for edit warring but not for socking. Thanks. The Blue Rider 14:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GB fan, hi. Per WP:LOUTSOCK, I accidentally made an edit while logged out, so I wanted to bring it to your attention. Could you please advise on how to proceed? Thanks. The Blue Rider 19:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged the admin that blocked me and they chose to ignore me, I pinged an admin with oversight access per WP:LOUTSOCK and they also chose to ignore me; my talk page has been visited by +300 editors since my block began, some of them surely admins and they all chose to ignore my unblock request. I don't want for my block log to have a block for sockpuppetry when it was a clear accidental edit while logged out. So please, can some admin review this before the block expires? Many thanks. The Blue Rider 15:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CactusWriter and ToBeFree, hi! I see that you are active right now. Could you please review my unblock request. Many thanks. The Blue Rider 23:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That ping did not work and the block had already expired when I came here from WP:ANEW. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring with RachelTensions

Regarding the edit warring with Rachel, most name articles have little to no content on the actual name and just serve as disambiguation articles for people with that name, but in the case of the Fiona and Tamara (name) I have added content related to the name and make no sense for the article to serve as disambiguation, specially taking into consideration that my GA nomination of the Tamara article was quick-failed partially because such list of notable people lacked sources, so in reality that whole list is unsourced content.

About the Antisocial personality disorder, the status quo is to not have the disssocial personality disorder as an alternative name in the lead, it was only recently added and I contested it by reverting so the onus is on Rachel to achieve consensus to have that added to the lead. The Blue Rider 23:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the Antisocial personality disorder, the status quo is to not have the disssocial personality disorder as an alternative name in the lead, it was only recently added and I contested it by reverting so the onus is on Rachel to achieve consensus to have that added to the lead.

The alternative name in the lead has been there since at least June 13, over four months ago. The status quo is to include it, and the article specifically refers in multiple places to that being another term for the same general disorder, including by the World Health Organization.

Nobody is edit warring... you made a controversial move that was contested, called people who contested it "assholes", then decided to gut the article after multiple people in the move discussion pointed out that the article was serving two purposes just fine. Then you deleted everybody's comments in the move discussion trying to act like nobody had pointed out this fact.

All over of a hippo named Fiona. RachelTensions (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is very much into place, the WP:3RR was broken by both of us, so we should be both blocked. 4 months is not status quo when the article has been without such alternate name for years. The ICD-10 calls it that, but that version is outdated since there is already a ICD-11 which doesn't call it that.

Also, I didn't called people assholes, I called one person asshole because they were being so. I also already explained multiple times that the article isn't supposed to serve two purposes, it is about a name; and I am not the only person that thinks so: I'm of the opinion that such lists should be spun off into their own disambiguation page if they aren't already; there will be hundreds of articles on people with the first name Fiona, and it makes no sense to lump them into an article about the name so that everything else is conpletely overshadowed. The Blue Rider

14:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idk about you but I very specifically did not perform more than 3 reverts on a single page per WP:3RR so kindly leave me out of that one :) RachelTensions (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry honey, but you did on Fiona (name) :) The Blue Rider

14:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reinforce the word more in "more than 3".

3 is not "more than 3". You're welcome to report for WP:3RR when your block is lifted in a week but any reasonable administrator would quickly realize the actions were justified looking at the history of this case.

Have a wonderful day. RachelTensions (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I and many others have been blocked for edit warring without breaking the WP:3RR, I am sure that if I report you will, specially since you are edit warring on three different articles. Fortunately for you, I am not going down on your level and report you. The Blue Rider

14:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my GA nomination of the Tamara article was quick-failed partially because such list of notable people lacked sources, so in reality that whole list is unsourced content.

The GA evaluation for Fiona specifically states: "These kinds of list function as disambiguations, so I don't think inline citations are required here.", and whoever gave you that advice on the GA for Tamara is patently incorrect... per WP:WHYCITE sources are required for material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" and per WP:WHENNOTCITE are not used on lists that serve disambiguation purposes. You'll see the GA for Femke has no sources cited in the list for this reason.

The only reason you keep chopping out chunks of Fiona is because you know the move proposal will fail. RachelTensions (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The very same reviewer of Fiona said that they might require citations for such list and they trying to gather consensus on the matter. I was the reviewer of Femke and I did not require citations but apparently that's not consensual among editors. The Blue Rider

14:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever saying this, I only opened that talk discussion to see what others thought and no clear consensus one way or the other has developed so far. Why you took it as a reason to delete the whole list section, move the article's title and get into an edit war, without ever bringing it up in the ongoing review, I don't understand. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You opened a discussion trying to understand the consensus on whether that section may require citations, so yes you did said/implied that... The Blue Rider

16:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Fiona

The article Fiona you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Fiona for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. RachelTensions (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for incompatibility with a collaborative project.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly shocked to the point I am crying. The Blue Rider

12:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree please explain the reason why you bloked me forever. The Blue Rider

12:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So an edit war ensued and I get blocked forever while the other user escapes without any administrative action? The Blue Rider

12:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AN3 even if I hold an egregiousness view, which I don't, you shouldn't revert and instead try to achieve consensus, in which we both did, and I get blocked for it? I am going to take this to WP:ARBCOM. The Blue Rider

12:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR and ToBeFree clearly lacks it and RachelTensions repeatedly acts in bad-faith. After I get unblocked, I am not going to leave this here, I am going to take action against both of you using Wikipedia internal tools. 12:30, 23 October 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Incompatibility with the project is something that is very ambigious and subjective and it is not something that is even present in WP:BLOCK. I have almost 7k edits in which I have successfully made various WP:GA myself that can be seen on my user page, I have reviewed plenty of other GA, I made several other good edits to the Wikipedia which shows that I am not incompatible with the project. Previously to this block, I have been blocked thrice; twice last year for edit warring and recently I have been blocked for sockpuppetry which was in fact an accidental edit while logged out on my mobile phone. I seriously do not understand how a simple edit war can lead to be being blocked forever when I have thousands of good edits. I made attempts to discuss the edit warring with RachelTensions on my talk page and on the talk page of Tamara (name) and Fiona, I was very actively trying to discuss the edit warring. One would expect that such ambigious and subjective block would have at least have an explanation on how I am imcompatible with the project. I will refrain from edit warring and continue the discussion that I already had started both on my talk page and the articles talk page instead of reverting; but this block is seriously out of place for an editor that has thousands of good edits to the project. The Blue Rider 12:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your method of communication with editors with whom you are in a dispute is unacceptable. This is a collaborative project and the ability to engage civilly is required; your recent edit history falls far short of what is expected. Being blocked indefinitely does not mean that you are blocked forever; it does mean, however, that you will remain blocked until you are able to show some degree of introspection as to how your recent interactions (including those with ToBeFree after the block), are inappropriate. Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:01, 23 October 2024 (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.

Hello The Blue Rider, this block is not forever. It is until you understand why your behavior was (or, looking at your reactions, currently remains) incompatible with a collaborative project and as soon as an unblock request credibly demonstrates this understanding and ideas for moving forward in other ways than through walls and against other people. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(In case you'd like to uphold the procedural concern about the block reason not being in the blocking policy, please have a look at the first sentence of WP:OWN, the first sentence of the section Wikipedia:Civility#Cooperation_and_civility and the introduction of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree You clearly didn't look into the noticeboard correctly because I made zero personal attacks after my last block and contrary to what RachelTensions said I did tried to discuss the change on my talk page and I immediately responded to RachelTensions discussion on the articles' talk page. The Blue Rider

17:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what's even more infuriating is that the other user has been edit warring with me and comes clean. You better have a good reason when this is taken to WP:ARBCOM. The Blue Rider

17:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we, together, have a look at [1]? The chronological list of your 50 latest contributions as of time of this writing, from top to bottom? Afterwards, could you please confirm if you "made zero personal attacks" after your last block? All of the listed contributions are after the last block; you couldn't have technically made most of them through a block and the block log may help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, yes, we can look through my edits and see if any of my edits would classify as a personal attack but I must say I was very careful to not make one. I didn't understand the last part of your sentence: All of the listed contributions are after the last block; you couldn't have technically made most of them through a block and the block log may help.. The Blue Rider

17:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the quoted sentence, I was just trying to make sure that my procedural accepting of your previous unblock request isn't incorrectly interpreted as the moment when your last block ended. Regarding the behavior, I'll wait for an uninvolved administrator to review the request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, I used the whale template and also posted on RachelTension talk page a cloud image for her to look at while we were waiting for our blocks, which are not personal attacks so I don't really know what are your claims of personal attack, uncivility and ownership behaviour (never have I claimed that the articles were mine and there are plenty of other edits to the articles which I didn't revert, quite the contrary, I welcome edits on those articles). The Blue Rider

17:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, du hast mich in der Vergangenheit blockiert, gib es zu. Du hast schlecht von mir gedacht und nicht einmal versucht, das Problem zu sehen. The Blue Rider

17:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did block you in the past, but I didn't even remember when I already knew I'd place an indefinite block just from the ANEW discussion and looking at the list of your latest contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree can you explain to me like I am five, why on earth would the other editor no also get a block for edit warring? 21:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC) The Blue Rider

21:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The announcement "Hope you enjoy your off-wiki days to watch some clouds." as well as your edits to RachelTensions's talk page left me unwilling to participate in your attacks or to confirm anything else than a need for your behavior to stop. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So because I stated that she would most likely get blocked this excuses her edit warring, gotcha. The Blue Rider

21:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statements like "You have edit warred too", "RachelTensions has edit warred too", "if I get blocked, RachelTensions should get blocked too", "if I get blocked, you will surely get blocked too" et cetera would not have had the same effect; it's the Schadenfreude in your messages rather than a simple understandable perception of unfairness that led to the one-sided decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree so my supposed Schadenfreude is not okay but her constant misrepresentation of the facts, aka deliberate lying, on multiple talk pages saying I called everyone on the Fiona talk page assholes and that I did not engage in the talk page when I did in fact and her more than 10 reverts on three different pages is okay?! The Blue Rider

18:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it look like days after this edit warring she is already been accused in another discussion of violating WP:GOODFAITH and for having WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. The Blue Rider

18:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo please explain how is my method of communication unacceptable since it doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies. The Blue Rider 18:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL is not only policy, it's a pillar of the encyclopedia, and your interactions with others do violate that policy. Accusing others of spreading lies, harassing editors by posting their talk page calling them "extremely annoying", the entire exchange at the recent edit warring noticebaord, all are unacceptable. That you can't see that is what makes the indefinite block necessary at this time.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user is in fact spreading lies, did you even bother to look into the diff that RachelTensions gave as the example that I called multiple people assholes?! I clearly said in the technical move requests that one user was being an asshole and she keeps portraying it as I called everyone on Fiona talk page assholes. I will do you an ad absurdum for you to understand: image there is a person that is in court and there is irrefutable proof that they murdered one person, but now the prosecutor is making evidence up that in fact that person killed 5 people, so instead of him getting sentenced to 10 years he is sentenced to 50. Just look at the diff, I said that the reverter was "just being an asshole" on a whole different page and to someone who wasn't even involved in Fiona's move request! How is this not spreading lies?! The Blue Rider

19:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, I must have relevant policy-based reasons as to why I was blocked in which the blocking administrator lacks to give. They cited three policies, WP:OWNERSHIP which clearly falls short when you see the edit history of the article and I didn't dispute many, many edits made to it; WP:No personal attacks and WP:CIVIL which also don't make sense since I was very careful to not make personal attacks. So I urge for the blocking administator, ToBeFree, either to give examples through difs of my supposed personal attacks and/or ownership behaviour or to admit this block was out of place. The Blue Rider 18:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been given relevant policy-based reasons, by multiple admins now, you just don't agree with them. There is no policy that requires admins to respond until you're personally satisfied with the answers provided. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, this is not helping my already fragile mental stability. The Blue Rider

18:44, 23 October 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I acknowledge my WP:OWN behaviour and my WP:Personal attacks and unWP:CIVIL comments towards editors. I will refrain from edit warring and doing these type of comments, I will instead use the talk page before reverting and discuss in a civil matter. The Blue Rider 19:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declining per user request. I will note that a week is the minimum time you should wait – longer might be advisable. Also, please fix your signature to comply with WP:SIGIMAGE. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:00, 24 October 2024 (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.

I have seen your use of a talk page too ([2], [3]) and am unsure what to expect exactly from what would be a complete change of mind less than an hour after a request for me to provide diffs or to "admit this block was out of place". There is no time limit for making an unblock request, and I think you should wait at least a week or two before writing a new one, even if it's purely to add credibility to the same text. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A minor issue, but WP:SIGIMAGE prohibits using images in signatures. (Emoticons are okay, however.) I admit I am a bit skeptical of the fact you changed your tune as soon as you realized you were not going to be unblocked by accusing TBF of improper conduct. I lean strongly towards declining this appeal, with the recommendation that you wait at least a week before appealing again. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Fair enough, I shall wait a week. Feel free to decline the request. The Blue Rider 22:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I acknowledge my WP:OWN behaviour and my WP:Personal attacks and unWP:CIVIL comments towards editors. I will refrain from edit warring and doing these type of comments, I will instead use the talk page before reverting and discuss in a civil matter. The Blue Rider 19:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Okay, welcome back (see below). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which urgent contribution specifically is currently prevented by the block and would be made as soon as you're unblocked? Or if it's just about editing at all, are you aware that you can still edit other Wikipedias? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My GA review on technical geography would be an example. The Blue Rider

18:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That example is so good that I'll go ahead and unblock. I was afraid you would have felt an urgent need to return to the old conflict(s) at articles about names. You're not formally required to stay away from them, but if things and people upset you, disengaging can be the best solution. And Wikipedia is still just a volunteer project and a website on the Internet. Welcome back, feel free to remove or keep the messages above; as they are no longer about an active block, you can also remove the unblock templates (the few exceptions at WP:UP#CMT don't apply). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The Blue Rider

18:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]