User talk:Universal Deus

Prince Jean, Count of Paris

Hello. I recently undid one of your edits to Jean, Count of Paris. You offered no citation of evidence for your claim that Prince Jean was "by absolute primogeniture, the heir to the defuct [sic] Empire of Brazil."

Furthermore, your claim is contrary to Article 119 of the Constitution of the the Empire of Brazil: "Art. 119. No foreigner can succeed to the Crown of the Empire of Brazil."

Have a wonderful day! CSBurksesq (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, I'm DrKay. I noticed that you recently removed content from George V without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Universal Deus! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to George V, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page Second Punic War, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BlueNoise (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|1=the reason i have been blocked is due to "vandalism" i saw a table filled with random words on first bit of the page, so i removed it, if it was meant to be apart of the page i am truly sorry for undoing it Universal Deus (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)}

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).

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

Request reason:

the reason i have been blocked is due to "vandalism" i saw a table filled with random words on first bit of the page, so i removed it, if it was meant to be apart of the page i am truly sorry for undoing it Universal Deus (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not accurately describe your edits. Yamla (talk) 23:21, 15 October 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.

unblock|1=i have been blocked for a long time could i be unblock now?

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for vandalism which i was not trying to do when i made a particular edit on the second punic war. I would like to continue improve wikipedia by fixing minor issues, i would be glad to have a non indefinte block on this account has it as been blocked for a year now. Universal Deus (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This still does not address the reason for your block adequately. Many of your edits, not just the Second Punic War one, were subpar. In addition, even this very request still shows a very poor command of the English language, another consistent issue with your edits. Accordingly, I am declining this request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Admin apolopgy.

Sorry i thought i had a computer issue that is why i made multiple requests. I am sorry for my apparent vandalism actions. Universal Deus (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declined unblock requests

While you may normally remove anything you choose from your user talk page, declined unblock requests are one of the few exceptions. While the block remains active, you may not edit or remove any declined unblock requests, and continuing to do so will result in revocation of your user talk page privileges. If you want to file another unblock request, make a new one; don't edit one that's already declined. If the block is later lifted, you may then remove the unblock requests if you wish, but not until then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i did not know that. Would there be any way to be reinstated with editing privileges because I would prefer to have the block lifted. Universal Deus (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to. But I left you some advice in the unblock request I declined. If you want to take another shot at it for another admin to review, you can do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could I be reinstated with editing privileges for 1-3 months on probation. If any edit I make is "subpar", as determined by an administrator, reinstate my block that I currently hold. I understand if this is impossible do due to the potentially unorthodox nature of agreement. However, I beg you to consider this proposal. Universal Deus (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you that my answer is "no", and I don't intend to change that. However, as I already said, you can put up a new unblock request. Obviously, since I have already considered one, I could not and will not be the one to evaluate any others. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

please refer to previous dialog for my reason as to one i should be unblocked Universal Deus (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no reason here to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

Could you also please define how long my block is in place? Universal Deus (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is indefinite, meaning it has no expiration date. That does not make it "forever", just until and unless you convince an admin to lift it. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Controversy

I am not a sock puppet nor is this account owned by User:Salamanderindisguise. I wish that User:Courcelles would take me off the list since he said "elatedly I realize that despite the order they showed up on the CU screen that User:Universal Deus is technically the master… but I don’t care enough to redo the tagging after midnight." I understand that it is late for Courcelles so could some other admin take me off the list for sockpuppetry.

"David notMD (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]

Don't really want to bother appealing, yes I am a sockpuppet of User:Salamanderindisguise. I would like to point out that i own every account listed in this page except for Universal_Deus, no clue who owns that account, you can verify this by seeing the similar naming conventions I use (always talking about pirates or animals)"

Thus i would like an apology for being implicated for this and being "the master". I hope this is all just a miscommunication. To conclude i am not a sockpuppet and this is the only account that I own.

Universal Deus (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Universal Deus (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry. Additionally, you either can't understand what you are being told or are deliberately wasting our time. Expect to lose talk page access if you continue, as your requests are indistinguishable from trolling. Yamla (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am not a sock puppet would you like me to send you an email with proof this is not an alt account? there is clear evidence that i am not a sock puppet. You have never told me anything about rehabilitation or reinstatement of editing privileges without even though. The only reason other than Vandalism, for which I am truly sorry and have repented for. Is for my poor command of English, now because Wikipedia does not have some sort of language test before making an account and thus being able to edit, it should not be a majors factor in determining whether to block someone from editing. I am sorry if I am wasting your time and just want to know the steps I would need to take to get my account back.

I do not know how else to get attention form the admins so I am appealing this block as well but please consider reading the last topic I added because it is still important. I know that I violated Wikipedia's policy and I apologies for my vandalism. Thus I would have you consider lifting my block because I have been blocked for nearly a year and the only reason I want to get reinstated is to correct the odd mistake I sometimes see. thus to conclude I am not a sock puppet and I have repented for my actions and thus i think it would be reasonable to have my account unblock. Universal Deus (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Universal Deus (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am not a sock puppet i am happy to provide proof I am not a sock puppet refer to my previous paragraph for my reasoning as to why i should be unblock because i forgot to add the un block reason scripts. Universal Deus (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppet please refer to my previous statements to why I should be unlink and unblocked. I am unable to get an admin to fix this situation Universal Deus (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]