User talk:Trufeseeker

Welcome

Hello Trufeseeker and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Nathan Rich, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nathan Rich. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

Hi, since I'm unsure you realise your previous mistake, please note that WP:PROD says

PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with a deletion discussion (AfD or FfD), and it may only be placed on a page a single time. Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD.

This means it was you who was acting against wikipedia guidelines (actually policy) when you re-added the prod tag after the tag had been removed. There is no requirement for someone else to 'vet' an article before the prod tag can be removed, just an editor in good standing removing the prod. As was mentioned in edit summaries, if a prod tag is removed and you still feel deletion is justified under our guidelines and policies (which means you feel the subject is not WP:NOTABLE), you are welcome to send it to WP:AFD. Nil Einne (talk)

Repeated Vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nathan Rich, you may be blocked from editing. Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third Vandalism Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Nathan Rich, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaozhadelaowai (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Vandalism Warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nathan Rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaozhadelaowai (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of the PROD tag to Nathan Rich

You are violating Wikipedia policy by continually reintroducing the PROD tag to the Nathan Rich article. If you don't stop, you're likely to find yourself blocked. If you want to propose that this article be deleted, please make add a new entry here. Thanks. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history at Nathan Rich shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content Dispute

A dispute on the talk page of Nathan Rich has been created to discuss the page content. Please join the discussion. Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nathan Rich for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nathan Rich is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rockstone Rockstonetalk to me! 17:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy.

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 ~~~~}}. Sasquatch t|c 20:44, 26 June 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Ignorance regarding the harassment policy, I was reacting to my corrections being removed without a credible reason Trufeseeker (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Ignorance of the harassment policy isn't a justification to engage in harassment. Nor have you addressed your violation of WP:OUTING. Nor, for that matter, have you given us reason to believe you'd act differently if unblocked. Additionally, all of your article edits have been to Nathan Rich. That's fine, but we aren't interested in single purpose accounts here. For that matter, your description of "corrections" doesn't match the edits you've been making. You are unlikely to be unblocked without addressing these and telling us what other subject areas you'll edit. It would go quite a distance if you agreed to a topic ban around Nathan Rich and about Scientology, broadly construed. Yamla (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2019 (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.

Related, note that Diaozhadelaowai has now been blocked indefinitely for violating WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Yamla (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]