User talk:UnixBased

Welcome!

Hi UnixBased! I noticed your contributions to Marxist Tendency and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 16:55, 12 May 2023 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:UnixBased reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: ). Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary is inappropriate as civility is required on Wikipedia. Please also be advised that you are warned against fuerther edit warring at People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic. Since you added content which was then removed, please follow WP:BRD and discuss the preferred changes on the article's talk page and obtain a consensus for your edits before reinserting them to avoid edit warring, especially since this article falls under a contentious topic, specifically Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War. If outside opinions are needed to obtain a consensus there are dispute resolution options available such as WP:3O and WP:DRN. - Aoidh (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of my comment per the below, as editing that topic requires extended confirmed status, which I mistakenly thought you met the criteria of. - Aoidh (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh – Every word you wrote is correct though, Aoidh. It just needs to be read with the information below in mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Then I will change it from a strikeout to a talk quote to keep in mind with the below context and let the matter rest for now. - Aoidh (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the work unintentionally caused by my notes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed restriction

Hi UnixBased,

I have noticed that you have recently edited pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Please note that, due to community consensus documented at WP:GS/RUSUKR, only extended-confirmed editors may make such edits.

When in doubt, please assume that a topic is covered by this restriction. We call this "broadly construed". If this still leaves you unsure about whether a topic is affected by the restriction, feel free to ask on my talk page.

This is not widely announced to newcomers, so I'm not blaming or condemning you for not knowing about this. I'm also not saying that your editing has been problematic in any other way. Your edit may well have been perfectly fine in all other regards, yet may have been removed for this reason.

Additionally, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has recognized "Eastern Europe or the Balkans" as a generally contentious topic area. Don't worry: The restriction to extended-confirmed editors is about the Russo-Ukrainian War, not the entirety of Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The box below contains standardized advice for everyone.

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

This may be confusing, so I'll attempt to summarize it:

Only extended-confirmed editors may edit pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Details and exceptions can be found at WP:GS/RUSUKR.
All edits about Eastern Europe and the Balkans, by all users, need to be done with extra care.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if there are any questions.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks that helps. Best wishes UnixBased (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A toast sandwich for you!

🍞 🐦DrWho42👻 05:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, UnixBased. Thank you for your work on Organisation of Communist Internationalists. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to The Communist (UK). This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 22:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UnixBased,

I came to say the same thing about this edit you made. Moving an article to Draft space is not vandalism and this edit does not say "Minor edit", it was a page move, not an edit affecting the content. Ab incomplete article is often best in Draft space where it is less likely to be tagged for speedy deletion. So, don't malign editors that are just trying to do their best and don't take these actions personally. Assume good faith and if you have questions, go to the editor's User talk page and ask. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 17:08, 8 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't use multiple accounts for any harmful acts, there for don't see the reason of this block, I cant even normally argue for my unban because i was not given information, what actions Drimes regarded as abuse

Decline reason:

Really obvious abuse: edit warring with the two accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:06, 8 February 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.

UnixBased (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're edit warring on The Communist (UK) with this and your other account, User:Splits 'n' Fusions. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's kinda what I thought. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Ghu! I'll leave this open for another to review, but it's so obvious, even I can see it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as the person who was getting accused of vandalism and "article harassment" by them, the fact it was always one then the other from very single issue accounts stood out as highly suspect. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:23, 8 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I understand i did wrong because i didn't pay attention in what account im currently in. I asking from reducing the ban from permanent to some sort of temporary ban

Decline reason:

Earlier, you falsely claimed you didn't abuse multiple accounts. I'm glad you now acknowledge you did. WP:SO is an option for you; this requires six months with no block evasion. You'll likely also need to agree to refrain from using multiple accounts, even legitimately, given your abuse. Yamla (talk) 19:04, 23 February 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.