User talk:Hulk576

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Hulk576! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 22:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

April 2015[edit]

Information icon Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Military does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! – S. Rich (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Adam9007. I noticed that in this edit to God, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

There are several problems with your recent edit at Jehovah's Witnesses[1], which has been reverted:

  • You changed 'adherents' to the jargon term 'publishers'.
  • The use of 'publishers involved in evangelising' is a tautology as the jargon term 'publishers' means 'adherents involved in evangelising'.
  • You replaced the average publisher values from 2022 with the peak publisher figures from 2022, claiming you were 'updating' to the '2022' figures. The 'peak' figures are less reliable as they can include individuals more than once due to late reports, as stated in The Watchtower, 15 August 2011, page 22: "“Peak publishers” is the highest number reporting for any one month of the service year and may include late reports that were not added to the preceding month’s report. In this way some publishers may be counted twice." This is why the average is used instead.
  • You changed quoted text to a form not present in the original quote. This is highly inappropriate. It is easy to verify that the original wording is that in the quoted source.
  • You falsely claimed in your edit summary that you 'fixed tampering with the article', whereas you introduced problems yourself, including a dishonest change to quoted text.

You are welcome to discuss your edits at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information about rapid reverts at an article[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jehovah's Witnesses. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

Hi, Hulk. You need to stop your aggressive posting at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses before I block you from it. This kind of post is unacceptable, even if the "Redacted" trick is sort of humorous. I think Jeffro77 was wrong to suggest that Wikipedia may not be the place for you, but that's a poor excuse for escalating your rhetoric the way you did. By the way, you say in the same post that you apologized to Theroadislong (if I understand your phrasing; the post seems rather hastily written). Where did you do that? I just looked at the history of TRIL's talkpage, and I don't see an apology. Did you use email? Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I had left an apology on his talk page that was after what I'd said and unfortunately the Wiki Admin: Materialscientist deleted it but the message for through because Theroadislong forgave me. Hulk576 (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And no reason to threaten with a block, me and Jeffro77 are actually having an amazing conversation if you go take a look. The Redacted thing was a safer way that I'd found out in the wiki guidelines and policies Hulk576 (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(You use colons as if you're replying to yourself..!) As I said, I looked at the history of User talk:Theroadislong; in other words, I didn't merely look at what's on the page at the moment. (This is the page history. To read an edit in it, click on its "prev" link.) I saw all your posts, and I don't see anything remotely like an apology — it's all attacks. The only post of yours that Materialscientist removed is this. You seem to misremember what happened. Do you know how to create diffs? (Here is a simple guide). If you still think you apologized, please provide a diff for it. Bishonen | tålk 10:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
My puncuations poor, I'm trying to get a hang of wiki policies and guidelines still learning I do make mistakes don't we all but at the end of the day we're all human regardless of policies, guidelines, laws, if you read what I explained to wiki admin [Cullen328] you'd get a better understanding of who I am. Hulk576 (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean User:Cullen328 I presume, written as [[User:Cullen328]] . Doug Weller talk 10:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking discussions on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

Please don't "clean up" the Jehovah's Witnesses talkpage by removing everything that's embarrassing for you. You can do that on your own talkpage, but not on article talk. If you think a resolved discussion is bloating up talk, you can "hat" it. That will mean it takes up much less room and is not in a reader's face, but it can still be accessed by somebody who's interested. I have restored the stuff you removed and hatted it. If you have any interest in learning this trick, please look at the code I used for hatting so you can do it yourself another time. Bishonen | tålk 12:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Ok thx I'll definitely do that next time and it has nothing to do with being "embarrasing" just was deleting a completed debate cuz I thought that's what you do to "clean up" the talk page and lessen the amaount of space it's taken up. Hulk576 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked for two weeks from editing for harassing another editor. 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 ~~~~}}.
Your intimidating behavior at User Talk:Jeffro77#I would like to talk to you in private? is not acceptable. It is harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the next block is likely to be indefinite. You have been warned by two administrators to abandon your battleground behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero justification for this ban!?![edit]

If the talk pages have failed, name where else I can have a conversation that's not limited? It was in no way harassment. And you know it, I was being straightforward and saying I'm willing to have a discussion outside the talk pages to resolve the dispute. Hulk576 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even specifically cite the policy/guidelines I broke? Hulk576 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anything you're harassing me for nothing. Hulk576 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The policy that you broke is Wikipedia:Harassment, and you have been blocked twice previously for similar misbehavior. Also relevant is the subsection of the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that can be found at the shortcut WP:BATTLEGROUND. Although it is not a formal policy, the widely respected essay Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process also sheds light on your behavior in recent weeks. If you disagree with the block I placed, you are free to file a formal appeal, following the instructions in the block notice carefully. Your appeal will be reviewed by another administrator, not by me. I recommend that you read the Guide to appealing blocks carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute was resolved between me and Jeffro77 and I was getting ready to take a long break from Wikipedia but NOOOO that's asking too much and you go ahead and ban me, It's illogical. Hulk576 (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the dispute was resolved is a lie. I will not engage with you further during your block period.—Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deserve being banned/blocked every 5 seconds. For petty stuff that's not even severe when they're are worse people hacking the articles or vandalizing pages but Ohh...No we gotta target the editor whose trying to do unconventional tactics to reach a resolution cuz when I tried to reach out nobody helped. Hulk576 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ain't nobody talking to you? Hulk576 (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go play victim somewhere else Hulk576 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ban you. I blocked you for two weeks. Bans and blocks are different things. Appeal the block if you disagree with it, but do not attack the other editor in any way, shape or form. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jim if this ain't harassment idk what is?
"I think Jeffro77 was wrong to suggest that Wikipedia may not be the place for you, but that's a poor excuse for escalating your rhetoric the way you did."
This was by wiki admin:Bishonen Hulk576 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You show favoritism twords Jeffro77
By letting him get away with it but with me you hold me accountable for my actions unte the policies and guidelines plz😒 Hulk576 (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • under
Hulk576 (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite hypocritical Hulk576 (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drop it and focus on correcting your own misconduct, or I will revoke your talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating facts jim, you're threatening me now with zero justification. Hulk576 (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Final warning. Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Hulk576 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.
You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.
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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "threats" no longer stand I'm not gonna waste my time for something petty like this it's not worth it. You guys are dictators and that's exactly what you are and that's exactly why the policies and guidelines make reference to that term "dictators". Hulk576 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk page access has been revoked because of your latest personal attack. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock option. Cullen328 (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #78808 [edit]

is pending close. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cross-posting as UTRS is sometimes glitchy:
I'm afraid this is drivel filled with empty, high-sounding nonsense. We know how wonderful Wikipedia is. It is your conduct that is problematical. You were originally blocked for personal attacks and harassment. Judging by your talk page, you consider this justified. It never is. There are even more problems on your talk page mentioned. I'd like you to deal with those, too. Calling us dictators was a sure-fire way to lose talk page access. (Yet another personal attack.) If you have withdrawn a threat of taking legal action, please state clearly that you have done so. Further threats or personal attacks via UTRS will result in you being banned from UTRS. The system will not allow another unblock request for forty-eight hours. Please use that time to review the voluminous coaching links left for you. Please be prepared to concisely and clearly describe what behaviors led to your being blocked and what you would do differently. To ensure you see this, I will cross-post to your talk page. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra GPTZero gives the appeal a 75% probability it's AI generated. Doug Weller talk 11:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Claptrap. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is closed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dif for legal threat -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #78985 [edit]

Mulling restoring talk page access. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TPA reinstate #1[edit]

Talk page access reinstated. The user can make their unblock request here, retracting their legal threat and addressing their violations of WP:NPA. Hulk576, please thoroughly review WP:GAB before doing so. Your UTRS request was a mess and if you make a similar request here, expect to have it immediately declined and talk page access re-revoked. In particular, avoid any use of ChatGPT. We want to hear from you, not from an AI. --Yamla (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing WP:TBAN for Jehovah's Witnesses ‎ broadly construed, and also evincing a thorough understanding of WP:dispute resolution as unblock conditions. Thanks @Yamla: for handling the UTRS ticket. User needs to hear from more than just me. It's Sunday, so a more in depth analysis and courtesy pings can wait. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything stated in UTRS appeal #78985 was my own words and acknowledgement of my wrongdoing. and where it was I was wrong. Tho it may be considered a "mess" it was to me explaining the best that I could. It did have missing items that I proof-read that would've added to a more constructive response but ultimately I'm doing the best that I can to convey to you within my own limited range of understanding.
I stated that what lead the recent block was a misinterpretation of WP: Private Correspondence
And the WP:Legal Threats page doesn't specify exactly how to go about retracting the Legal Threat even tho done so 3 times now
I ended up deleting the Legal Threats thinking that would be formally retracting the threats and adhering to "You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved."}}
The WP:NPA was simply frustration of targeting by admins for simply making a mistake while contributing to the site like the ethos says "Anyone Can Edit. Unless 1 person says you're wrong even tho I provided substantial amount of evidence and had 2 additional consensus, Yet I'm wrong Why!?!
That simple fact that I have every Admin against me speaks the truth to that claim.
And it's not right!
Compared to the people who are actually vandalizing the site and in some forums I've have read have made threats to hack the site. And it's recent.
I'm a small fish, as compared to the Whales that are on the loose and who could careless about Admins power and do extremely more harm than me. But no...focus on me.
Also, why should I be banned from WP: Jehovahs Witnesses? I did nothing wrong other than following Wikipedias policies and guidelines by providing sources for the claims in the talk pages. Albeit, I've made mistakes but I at least acknowledged them.
It's my absolute failure, that I didn't read the policies or guidelines before I started editing on Wikipedia and before and that was an obvious big mistake, but there's no justification in banning me from a topic I genuinely tried to contribute to regardless of my actions.
I ask solely this, Please restore my editing on my user/talk page and please limit the block to 1 months time and when I eventually come back after that time passes and I'll be able to demonstrate to you that I've changed and become an editor who has studied all the ins and outs of Wikipedia and will contribute greatly to the Project in anyway that I can.
😔🙏 Hulk576 (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't WP:TBAN me from Jehovah's Witnesses ‎ as there's absolutely no reason to do so. Let me instead use it to demonstrate to you that I can be a productive editor on that article rather than a disruptive editor.😔🙏 Hulk576 (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a WP:TBAN. I'd suggest Hulk576 should stay away from religion generally, but I'm not sure I'd necessarily make that a condition of unblock. I'm unsure what I'd like to see around WP:NPA, but I would need Hulk576 to be pretty darn convincing here. Not just a promise to refrain, something meaningfully convincing, a clear demonstration they understand how blatantly inappropriate they were behaving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamla (talk • contribs)
On a personal level I would like an apology for this appalling comment on my talk page [2] where you said “Hey Asshole I got a bigger fish that can bring you down from your high horse with your threats” Theroadislong (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the claim in this edit (since deleted), I am not aware of having received any 'formal apology', nor any general acknowledgement for various statements of mine that were falsely labelled as 'incorrect' by the editor, as well as a false claim that my comments at the Talk page constituted a conflict of interest. At the very least, any such 'apology' should indicate an understanding of what is being apologised for rather than a vague 'blanket apology', though I haven't seen that either. The editor's most recent comments directed at me[3][4] do not convey the tone of an apology. But maybe I missed something. Perhaps the editor can provide a diff of the apology.
The ongoing claim that the editor had gained consensus for their position is also false. Vyselink[5] and Anachronist[6] both very directly indicated that they do not share the editor's position, and no editor has specifically stated agreement with the editor's position. Instead, the editor took statements from two editors about preferring completely independent sources and misconstrued those as endorsement of secondary sources that explicitly cite a primary source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Throadislong, I am sorry for calling you those horrible words you didn't deserve it. I misinterpreted the whole situation and that's on me. I know that I misunderstood your warning as a threat rather than took it as actual advice and obviously I should've. Because at the end of the day knowing what I know now... goodness! I would've never have said a single thing and should've just stayed quiet and have known the WP: policies and guidelines from the get go. All I can do is this, repent from my wrongdoing and never allow it to happen again this I swear it.🙏😔
Sincerely, Hulk576. Hulk576 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffro77, You're exactly right! I'd assumed that both of the Editors had reached a consensus when they cited this independent sources.
I apologize if you felt in anyway pressured by me when I was trying to reach out to you. I'd felt the talk pages were inadequate and felt like we could have a more engaging discussion on a platform that we could better communicate our thoughts on rather than keeping going back and forth unproductive. I had fallen under the assumption of WP: Private Correspondence as justification from my actions and for that I'm truly sorry.
Also, I'm sorry for the disruptive editing, I was just generally passionate about the article as it's personal to me but even more so when I thought I had the right information. Which of course anyone would be upset if they thought they made the correct edit but it eventually kept getting shutdown.
I'm also sorry for the personal attacks I hurled at you as you didn't deserve it, I was just frustrated with the whole ordeal and didn't know what else to do and obviously I showed my ignorance clearly! I'd felt like I couldn't win no matter what, I did eveything was wrong and to an inexperienced editor such as myself that's no justification in my actions
I hope you can truly forgive me for my actions and I promise to you Jeffro77, I will never make that mistake again as I see clearly now what that level of "ignorance" gets me.

Sincerely, Hulk576. Hulk576 (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Hulk576's recent comments, it's very clear there's no chance the block will be lifted at this time (WP:SNOWBALL) and the kindest thing would be to reinstate the talk page access revocation. If anyone disagrees, please speak up. --Yamla (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, reinstate. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TPA revoke #2[edit]

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Hulk576, I very strongly suggest you take at least six months off from en.wikipedia. After at least six months have passed, feel free to request an unblock via WP:UTRS. There's no reasonable possibility you'll be unblocked unless you propose a topic ban and unless you show considerably more understanding than you have done here of why you were blocked and what was wrong with your behaviour and why it was your fault, not the fault of other editors. --Yamla (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss something? I thought the apologies were acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to reinstate talk page access if you wish. I'll note that there was an edit conflict between the time Doug and I commented and the time I revoked talk page access (that is, Hulk576 added new comments I didn't see). --Yamla (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an admin though. Theroadislong (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you think I should reinstate talk page access and I'll do it if you think it's warranted. --Yamla (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness I was just curious to know what was "inappropriate and/or disruptive" about there latest comments, they appear to be what was being asked for. Theroadislong (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As of this version of the page, the user had outright refused to consider a topic ban (I believe this is still the case) and had not apologised to the editors for harassment (I believe this changed subsequently). The user also didn't seem to understand consensus and had explicitly stated they didn't understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, though they did commit to reading these over the next month. --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You perhaps didn't see the edit after that one here [7] where they were more conciliatory, but I'm happy for the user to sit out a longer block before requesting an unblock. Theroadislong (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no path forward without a topic ban, which the user has currently outright rejected. They are free to use WP:UTRS if they wish to request an unblock sooner. I'll note also they didn't actually attempt an unblock request here after the talk page access was reenabled. --Yamla (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s hard to determine whether the apology is sincere or a case of ‘saying what they want to hear’. But I would be tentatively willing to accept the apology and ‘endorse’ (it’s not in any way my decision) lifting the block. Subsequent behaviour could then establish the sincerity of the apology. That said, it might be of benefit to the editor to work on articles about other subjects while tension could remain.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting strictly about TPA (and not about the indef), I have to agree with Theroadislong, here; those apologies sounded okay, and in particular, lost the earlier tone of "I'm gonna mouth the words I have to" and seemed to come from the heart; the tone now seems more, "I finally get it; what a jerk I was." While I agree with a T-ban, I think stopping TPA in response to those apologies sends the wrong message here: if we've asked them to do something, and they do it, a further sanction shouldn't be the result. Not entirely sure what to do, now; I think I'll try a friendly AN notice seeking additional eyes about this. Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need. Two users have questioned my re-revocation of TPA, I'm happy to restore it. I do expect to see an unblock request from Hulk576, though. And I strongly suggest it includes a topic ban, but note Hulk576 isn't trying to convince me, they are trying to convince the next reviewing admin. --Yamla (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I had been spending the interim carefully summarizing the situation for a possible AN post, but as you point out, there's no need for that now. I'll keep the text around somewhere, in case anyone deems it helpful at some future point to have a relatively concise précis of what happened here; might save someone else the bother of recreating it. Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TPA reinstate #2[edit]

Talk page access is reinstated. Note that the legal threat has been dealt with, leaving only the violations of WP:NPA and the question of general inappropriate editing around Jehovah's Witnesses. --Yamla (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was a nurse, so root cause analysis is part of me. I think we need to "ask the next question," and have the user show understanding of WP:dispute resolution processes. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 aka Jim, I definitely wanted to apologize to you for my actions, comments, and threats, and misconduct, you didn't deserve it Jim I acted out of ignorance and vitriol towards and for that I'm truly sorry, I understand where you were coming from and you were genuinely trying to help me when you posted the WP: policies and guidelines in good faith; when if you hadn't cared you wouldn't of posted those in response to my request, of which I was appreciative of. And obviously I blatantly disregarded it, I realized that there's no justification in my actions simply put and I acknowledge that, I need to be someone whose to open to other people's wisdom, criticism, Co-operation, rather than just being close-minded and ignorant.
Finally, I want to apologize for the Legal Threats towards you as you didn't deserve it I'd felt as tho I was backed into a corner and had no way out and resorted to something I'd learned in the WP:guidelines and policies and there was absolutely no justification for it and the amount of stupidity that was must've truly confounded you and everybody else as did me I know that.
At the end of the day Jim I respect you for who you are an honest, Good hardworking outgoing person whose genuinely contributed to this platform way more than I'll ever do tbh and to label you as a "Dictator" Is an ultimate spit in the face to anyone who spends the insane amount of hours dedicating their lives essentially to contributing to this amazing project, whereas I've done Soo little to contribute to the project. Before getting blocked I'd reached 200 edits which is like wow! I went from being inactive and having generally 100 edits to a span 200 in such a short amount of time, albeit for the wrong reasons but goes to show that I'm pretty speedy no lie. Epecially when I'm doing this on my phone and you guys have specialized tools. But compared to the figures you have to I'll never reach those figures and I really don't plan on doing so or really stive to be an Admin as I've researched is not an easy thing to attain and requires almost ADHD like attention to the site whereas for me I just generally did short edits every now and then.
I hope you can truly forgive Jim, And moving forward I'd like you and and every other Admin/Experienced editor to help me learn how I can be the best contributive editor that I can be on Wikipedia.🙏😔
Sincerely, Hulk576, Hulk576 (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An extraordinary gift[edit]

Hulk576, Tl;dr: wait out your six months before appealing; recognize the extraordinary gift you were offered by those most injured by your recent behavior; practice improving your skills through discussion here or contributions to sister projects, including other Wikipedias where you are not blocked.

Given that you are now indef-blocked and there were murmurings of a T-ban above, you are not out of the woods, not by a long shot. One admin recommended a six-month hiatus from Wikipedia, and I think I agree with him. (More on that below.) That said, there are editors here (me included) who will try to help you develop the skills you need to get back in good standing. Much patience will be required on your part.

Nevertheless, despite the seriousness of the situation, it could be even worse; you could still be blocked from this page as well. I hope you recognize the extraordinary gift you've been offered in having your Talk page access restored, and in particular, how that came about. There are fully five admins who are involved on this page, which is kind of amazing (and at least one more, who blanked an appalling comment of yours at a user page); hardly the kind of attention one wants to attract.

More important, is the fact that the two editors who suffered the most directly from your actions are willing to give you a second chance. By mentioning them, I'm not asking you to repeat apologies you have made already; rather, I'm simply asking you to look at the lengths to which editors you have attacked are nevertheless willing to see in you the possibility to make positive contributions to the encyclopedia going forward. Do you see how extraordinary and selfless an action this is? The two editors you most reviled, Theroadislong and Jeffro77, are the ones who tipped the balance in the discussions above, leading to your Talk page access being restored by an admin. I hope you appreciate their willingness to set aside their hurt, and place their hope in you for your future contributions. So, please don't prove them and me and everybody wrong!

So, where does this leave you now? Well, it leaves you indefinitely blocked for now. I can't tell you what to do or not to do, but I would also advise you not to appeal your block until six months have passed. It would be premature at this point, and might be seen as an annoyance after previous attempts, or that it's just too soon, and you need time to fully reflect on what went wrong, let it sink in, and digest it all so you can make a proper, well-reasoned appeal after the time has elapsed.

In the meantime, I think you have two avenues available to you now:

  • honing your skills and trying them out at Wikimedia sister projects, where you are not blocked; and
  • trying to improve your skills by discussion with other editors here at your Talk page.

This isn't an either-or, and you can do both. If you speak Spanish, you can contribute to Spanish Wikipedia, here. (There are about 300 other language Wikipedias as well.) Do a good job there, without screwing up, and that will count a lot when it comes time to make your block appeal. But it takes some time to establish a track record editing elsewhere, so be patient, and use the time wisely. If you don't speak a foreign language, then consider contributing at Simple English Wikipedia, here. Be aware that each Wikimedia project has its own policies and guidelines, and while things like WP:Verifiability or WP:CIVILITY may have counterparts at other Wikipedias, they might not, or they might be different from ours, so please familiarize yourself with the local policies or guidelines wherever you go, and follow their rules, not ours.

As far as the second point: if you can recognize your own issues, and are willing to discuss them openly in a non-defensive manner, with a willingness to take on advice from other editors, that could be a way of deepening your understanding of how things work around here, and how to edit in a collaborative manner without running into the problems you have recently. It might also raise the likelihood that a block appeal down the road might be approved, if admins viewing your discussions here can see your sincere attempts at avoiding prior problems.

The situation is serious, but not hopeless. Reflect, practice, discuss; use your time wisely. Hope to see you back editing here eventually, with a whole new attitude, and whole new set of skills under your belt. If you want help, ask for it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop[edit]

Please stop. We appreciate that you've apologised to everyone and withdrawn your legal threat. But Wikipedia is not a social network (see WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK) and you have access to this talk page solely so you can make a future unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok absolutely! Hulk576 (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be ok for me to leave up my apology to Cullen328 or no? Hulk576 (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hulk, if an admin decides it is inappropriate to leave it up, they will either collapse or remove it, and either way, you needn't worry about it. At this point, it's probably best to just go quiet here for the time being. In my opinion, it's probably okay to ask them (or me) a question about how you can get started at Simple Wikipedia (or some other one), because that would be a preparatory step for you as far as skills training before writing your block appeal down the road; but it would be better to pose such questions elsewhere (i.e., not on English Wikipedia).
Remember: you are not blocked at other Wikipedias, you can go there right now and ask all you want. For example, you can go to the Simple Wikipedia community Talk page at Wikipedia:Simple talk and introduce yourself and ask a question. I will also leave you a welcome message at your Talk page on Simple, so you should get a notification about that in a minute, unless you have notifications turned off. Good luck, and it's best not to respond here at all (except for a block appeal or something closely related to it). You can ping me from Simple Wikipedia (or any Wikipedia), and I'll respond over there. Good luck! (Non-administrator comment) Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an Appeal.[edit]

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).

Hulk576 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am formally requesting that the block be lifted on my account on the basis that I have taken the time to reflect and learn more about wikipedias ins and outs, and want to continue be a productive contibuter on wikipedia even tho I fell short in my earlier misguided ways as a "noob" editor but I'm back and better than Ever! All I ever wanted to do was to continue to contribute to the project in the only way I knew how which was to do 'mini edits' in the topics that I was interested in. I hope you can you give me another chance to be a new person on wikipedia. Thank you! And Good day!Hulk576 (talk) 12:42 am, 15 March 2024, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

per concerns raised by blocking admin in #Unblock discussion-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:55, 18 March 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.

. Hulk576 (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion[edit]

  • Where are we on the WP:TOPICBAN on Jehovah's Witnesses?
  • Do we need a zero tolerance condition for edit warring and personal attacks?
  • @Mathglot: will you be available to guide appellant?

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not seeing recommended edits elsewhere, but I think we have enough. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: for advise and consent. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, thanks for asking. I oppose unblocking at this time for several reasons, with the comments about ChatGPT being the most significant, but the overall tone of the comments concerns me as well. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I Believe the WP:TOPICBAN is completely unnecessary due the fact that I have no prior history with set topic since last year, and was just simply trying to contribute by updating to the 'Supposed' factual statistics.
•Edit warring in and of itself is counterproductive and is counterintuitive to what it was I was trying to do from the start. I engaged in it, In due part to me feeling as tho I was being targeted for simply providing overwhelming evidence to justify my edits and was constantly being shutdown without even so much as to why? by outside sources I was wrong .
•I have no history of vandalizing the platform, No history of evading a block. Hulk576 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've been blocked since Sept. 2023, but we'll see . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, I will be available to guide Hulk, but in a limited fashion, so I would like to check in with Hulk first about this.
@Hulk: I can help you stay on track, in a somewhat limited fashion due to other demands on my time. I can see it working out, if you can take the initiative as far as staying on track: what I mean by this, is finding me and asking about any possibly dodgy edit first *before* you make it, instead of me looking over your shoulder all the time or critiquing problematic edits after they have already been made. Would that work for you?
Here's how that might work: every time you are about to make an edit, decide if the edit is *clearly and obviously okay*, or is possibly in a grey zone where you're not quite sure if it's okay or not. For the grey-zone edits, stop before you hit the "Publish" button, and start a new section either on the article Talk page where you can explain about your proposed edit and ask editors there what they think about it (and {{ping}} me from there as well), or else ask in a new section below, here on your Talk page, pinging me plus any other editors of your choice (not admins, generally). I'll try and check in with you from time to time as well, as I'm able. Would that kind of limited, non-interventionist guidance work for you? If so, I'm willing to help you on that basis. Either way, hope it all works out for you! Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mathglot. I agree to that compromise. Hulk576 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I even publish an edit I must take it up with him or and admin before I can do independent edits. Hulk576 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a chance that’s all I ask! Hulk576 (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, *not* every edit! Try to think about the edit before you make it, and triage it, into 1. definitely okay, 2. maybe okay (not sure), and 3. Definitely not okay. Obviously, don't make the #3 edits, ever. Go ahead and make the #1 edits without asking anybody. For those grey-zone edits in the middle, where you're not sure, go ahead and ask first. (and generally, ask me or other non-admin editors; admins are very busy)! Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about that! yea I understand, admins are very busy. Every edit I’ve made has gone unattested besides obviously the JW ones which I’ve yet to find someone who could disprove that the edits I made were factually incorrect from the sources I listed last year. All I wanna do I be a contributor on Wikipedia that’s all. Hulk576 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more nothing less Hulk576 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe admins tho view me as a disruptor… or to put it bluntly a nuisance to the platform which in and of itself goes against wikipedias Ethos ”Anyone Can Edit”
albeit there are guidelines that I failed to conceive but I did gain an understanding of their implementation and why they are what they are.
I don’t know what more I have to do to get unblocked? Hulk576 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I retracted my statements, made proper apologies accordingly, waited 5-6 months to attempt an appeal. It’s like come on man!?! I just want to go back to the way things were where I was subtly doing mini edits to topics I was interested in. Hulk576 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding the JW page because god forbid anyone NOT having contributed to a topic that’s meaningful to them. Hulk576 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean come on! This is unsustainable and ties in directly to my points outlined in “Wikipedia need to change”. Hulk576 (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you’ve got ChatGPT and Elon Musk saying this about Wikipedia. Then obviously something’s wrong. Hulk576 (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs to change?[edit]

with the prevalence of AI It should be more of a wake up call to everyone that eventually the days of old will certainly come to pass. And a new way to curate the site rather than the broken system that's sustaining the project.


This a statement from Chatgpt:

The progress of AI holds immense potential for sites like Wikipedia, as it enables more efficient content creation, editing, and fact-checking. AI algorithms can help streamline information retrieval, improve content quality, and support editors in managing vast amounts of data. This evolution could lead to more accurate, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on platforms like Wikipedia, benefiting users worldwide.

Elon Musk:

“I will give them a billion dollars if they change their name to Dickipedia.”

Why does Elon Musk hold this sentiment?

Why does Chatgpt say this?

I would like everyone's thoughts on this discussion aswell to make this an example of how it is I will contribute to the site moving forward. Hulk576 (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is really inappropriate. Don't abuse your talk page in this manner, especially when you have access solely to contest your block. --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that in and of itself is the problem. Hulk576 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one blocked me,
I resolved those reasons why you blocked me.
And yet I'm still blocked unjustifiably. Hulk576 (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose unblocking this user at this time, partly because of this and partly because of their unwillingness to accept a topic ban. Reviewing admins are, of course, free to ignore my concerns. --Yamla (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a political ideology/viewpoint should you be blocked from contributing if you have information to contribute to the article? Hulk576 (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk, can you put all discussion of AI on hold, until after your unblock request is decided? In theory, the only thing that should be going on at this talk page while you still have access to it, is appealing your block (in progress above) or clarifying block conditions. This section does not fit those restrictions, and it would have been better not to start this discussion just yet. Your 20:38 comment was very unfortunate, and makes me sad to see it. I'm afraid you've shot yourself in the foot; I just hope for your sake it's not a permanent injury. I really don't know what to say, now. Best, Mathglot (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, my comment at 20:38 was towards Yam

la as HE is the one who placed a block on me and was upset at the expose I wrote to elaborate on why I did what i Did. Hulk576 (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His block is completely unjustified as the contents that are listed for reason have been dealt with. I would've more than hoped that you would understand my frustration as I believe that admins like Yamla, DeepfriedOkra, Cullen328
Spicy, etc. want me to beg and plea for them to unblock me, essentially to "dance monkey dance" and that is completely unacceptable and Toxic to this site because of their status. And that's something I will absolutely not do.
If we must I'm willing to take this case up with the Arbitration Committee. To fully resolve this and go on about my merry way. Hulk576 (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused. My blocks have only been about restoring or re-revoking your talk page access, only modifying the indefinite block placed by Cullen328. Cullen328 is the original blocking admin here. You are free to take it up with WP:ARBCOM. I think it's unlikely they'll take your case, but you are definitely free to make it and, frankly, I see no point in you making further requests here at this time. --Yamla (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ook Yea see I didn't know that thank you for letting me know yamla. Hulk576 (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Yamla tell me honestly. what was it I needed to do properly to unblock myself even tho I personally believe I've done everything right.
Your stipulation for WP:TOPICBAN:
I'd like you to elaborate more on why that had to of been why it was you denied me in the first place?
Or was it the wording of my appeal? Which tbh isn't great and is probably considered poor but nonetheless I still atleast tried to do my darndest to keep it short and sweet. I'm look to have a more reasonable discussion rather than the unproductive back and forth that has been playing out non stop for awhile now. We're all adults we have are good days and bad days and when I messed up, I was having a bad day and was angry and frustrated over the whole ordeal. Does that constitute that I should remain blocked forever when I've Hulk576 (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was a loyal contibuter to Wikipedia. Hulk576 (talk)

I’d like to know what it is I should do moving forward?[edit]

I’ve been blocked since September of ‘23 and am still blocked for very offense that I’ve made amends with. My question to this is why? Hulk576 (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hulk576&oldid=1215660059"