User talk:WikipedianRevolutionary

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! 10mmsocket (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not create any more "controversial" move requests until the ones you have open have been resolved. Walt Yoder (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I wasn't that disruptive, and it's also a kinda mean way of greeting new users! WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what did I do to get this warning? WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also advise you to read my user page! WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change sourced content (as you did on the Hirak (Algeria) article) without providing a valid reason. M.Bitton (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Got it! If you don’t mind, please close that discussion. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to tell an admin to close it. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the 2018-2022 Arab protests title has been updated, so no point of reverting and also, why did you revert Hirak from the infobox? WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the move discussion, then that's something that only you can retract (just ask for a speedy close). For the rest, Hirak by itself is meaningless and not unique to Algeria; that's why we have a helpful description in the opening sentence of an article that is properly named "Hirak (Algeria)" and not just "Hirak". M.Bitton (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop edit warring while ignoring my first comment (about you changing sourced content without a valid reason). M.Bitton (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check the move discussion on the talk page of the Second Arab Spring, before accusing me of disrupting. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to check other articles. ALL I'm interested in is you refraining from changing sourced content without a valid reason. M.Bitton (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are the sources on that talk page. And I also see you’re planning to become agressive towards me. I don’t know if that’s true. That’s up to you! WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in other articles. Unless something is properly sourced in the article in question, then it doesn't belong there. If you don't know if something is true, then why are assuming bad faith? M.Bitton (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me! Also, proper source have been described to change to the “Second Arab Spring”name. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They can change all they want in other articles, but we won't in the concerned (unless it's supported by a reliable sources). Besides, the Algerian Hirak wasn't part of any other movement, the other article is a piece of crap. M.Bitton (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I apologise for assuming bad faith. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, is the “piece of crap” group of words allowed here? WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was indeed part of the Second Arab Spring! WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies accepted. Yes, describing a garbage article as piece of crap is perfectly acceptable (we're describing an article, not a person). You are welcome to take the rest to the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don’t see anything wrong with putting “Hirak (Algeria)” on the infobox. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Hello, WikipedianRevolutionary,

You are moving around a lot of articles to new page titles that you prefer. This activity is only to be done if the page moves are uncontroversial. Where they are likely to be controversial, you need to start a discussion first on the article talk page. Please do this in the future instead of just moving articles to your preferred title. You are still a very new editor and need to edit more to refine your judgment.

If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia, its Manual of Style or page moves, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you support, advice and a second opinion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for being nice and for not threatening me with blocks, although I do understand what I’ve done! WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Civil War

The closing was obviously made by someone who didn’t endorse the move, but whatever, it doesn’t really matter. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS
The article User:WikipedianRevolutionary, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:
Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

~~Cinderella157 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Excuse me, now my user page is a contentious topic? WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I inadvertantly added the incorrect notice template. See correct notice. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

I did not assume you were editing in bad faith by opening the RM at Talk:2011 Syrian Revolution#Requested move 19 July 2023. However, I was pointing out how opening that RM would be seen (yes, I did so in quite strong terms). I will assume that you would like me to close this for you? Can I suggest that you review the preceding RM. You will see that experienced editors have cited prevailing WP:P&G and given (or referred to) evidence addressing the criteria established by that P&G - thereby substantiating their reason/view with respect to the proposal. Less experienced editors have offered unsubstantiated opinion, which generally carries little weight in determining WP:CONSENSUS. Liz has stated above: You are still a very new editor and need to edit more to refine your judgment [regarding article titles and page moves]. I would echo this advice. It is better to sit back and learn a bit, than to jump in at the deep end and be labeled as disruptive. I see from above, that others have also cautioned you about page moves. If you do feel strongly about a particular title, follow Liz's advice and start a discussion to test the waters. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, older users usually look down on newer users. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should close the last Syrian Civil War RM, not the revolution one. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped that you might take onboard some of the guidance offered by myself, Walt Yoder, M.Bitton and Liz. Nonetheless, your post at Talk:Syrian civil war#Opinion on RM: I was emotionally manipulated to withdraw my request. Basically, if I didn’t withdraw it, I would’ve been warned or even blocked,[1] indicates to me that you don't know when to WP:DROPTHESTICK. However, if you believe that I have acted in any way toward you that is inappropriate, it is your prerogative to raise the matter at WP:ANI. I also observe that your posts at Talk:2011 Syrian Revolution#Requested move 19 July 2023 [2] and Talk:Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010#Requested move 27 July 2023 [3] (both RMs that you opened) indicate that you have responded without reading the prevailing WP:P&G that was linked in the discussions. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand, but please don’t report me. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really understand or are you just saying it to avoid being reported? If you do, please explain why starting the same move request that was closed four days earlier could easily be described as disruptive? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways, it could be. Need to remind you, I’m not used to those rules that much. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But probably it could be described as such due to making the same useless rm. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about you get used to the rules first? There is no "probably" about the fact that it's disruptive. I was generous in my initial description just to see whether you really understand the issue (I'm still not convinced that you do). M.Bitton (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite saying that you understand the guidance provided by myself, Walt Yoder, M.Bitton and Liz, you are still making undiscussed page moves here and opening RMs without discussion here. If you were familiar with WP:Article titles, you would be aware that, when two articles potentially have the same title, only one requires disambiguation, since WP:CONCISION is generally a primary consideration, the undiscussed move has been reverted. That article would also fall under the contentions topic Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe. You opened an RM at Talk:Crimea attacks (2022–present)#Requested move 17 July 2023. Mzajac advised you there of WP:GS/RUSUKR, that non-extended-confirmed users aren’t permitted to edit in internal project discussions, including requested moves and that this applied to opening an RM in the topic area. You opened an RM at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation#Requested move 4 August 2023. It clearly also falls within the topic area of WP:GS/RUSUKR. You were already aware of the restrictions. Opening the RM at Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is disruptive. I am thinking that the only question at this point is how this should be dealt with? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will promise I’ll stop! WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest we should do if you continue? M.Bitton (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really know, do you have a better idea? WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you can't make a suggestion, we'll just have to use our imagination. M.Bitton (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:WikiManUser21 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiManUser21. 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 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #77291

is closed. Once I used to join in, // Every boy and girl was my friend. // Now there's revolution, but they don't know // What they're fighting. --Living in the Past (song), Jethro Tull -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]