User talk:Worldwar1989

May 2022[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Oz\^InterAct 17:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, apologies for what has happened, I will admit I have been a bit trigger happy with the editing over the past few months but I promise if given a second chance it will not happen again, after more then a few warnings and also that now I have a better understanding of the rules. Okay thank you for your time and for your consideration and have a nice and lovely weekend. Worldwar1989 (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I'm still blocked from editing? Worldwar1989 (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2022 (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).

Worldwar1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, apologies for what has happened, I will admit I have been a bit trigger happy with the editing over the past few months but I promise if given a second chance it will not happen again, after more then a few warnings and also that now I have a better understanding of the rules. Okay thank you for your time and for your consideration and have a nice and lovely weekend.

Decline reason:

This does not come close to addressing the concerns raised at WP:ANI. It's not just your editing, though those problems are indeed critical. Yamla (talk) 12:22, 7 May 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.

But come on, is an indefinite block really necessary? Worldwar1989 (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2022 (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).

Worldwar1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can I get a second chance, I mean is an indefinite block really necessary? Worldwar1989 (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block will be removed when you demonstrate an understanding of the issues that led to it, commit to changing those issues, and describe how. If you have a better understanding of the relevant rules, please describe it in another request, I am declining this one. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 13 May 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.

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).

Worldwar1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Alright so I read through the rules and have a better understanding of what I did wrong by not consulting the talk page before making major changes and edits and I should not have revert pages to ones I may have personally preferred, with those lessons learnt about the errors of my ways I can promise it will not happen again. Now with all that said I just have to ask what can I do to prove that I have changed? Worldwar1989 (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Can I please have it reduced to a few months at least? Worldwar1989 Worldwar1989 (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm declining on two bases. One is that you received numerous warnings over many months on your talk page on this specific issue. Why did you not engage with them and continued to make these problems until you were hit with a full block? Why should we believe that any future issues will be resolved by communication (given its key relevance to this block reason)? The other is that you unblock request reads more like repeating the block summary backwards. Explain, in your words, why your actions were problematic - why don't we do it that way, and what you will do differently. We aren't looking for a parrot but genuine comprehension. As 331dot states, those sanctioned don't pick the block lengths. A block is indefinite because we want to know the issue won't recur (or a different issue). Blocking for a few months would just encourage you to go elsewhere until then, and then continue editing in a similar methodology. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:12, 6 June 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.

Someone else will review your request; the block will be removed when an administrator finds your request satisfactory. The blocked user does not get to choose the length of the block. Blocks are not a punishment, but a means to end disruption, and to be removed we must be convinced there will be no disruption. Merely reducing the block does not do that. If you have subsequent comments, please make them as standard, unformatted comments like this, as only one open block request is needed at a time. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this editor is insisting too much, I think they can be provided a WP:ROPE but not without a topic ban from anything related to wars and military conflicts, because this subject saw most disruption from this user. They can still edit about Disney, Pepsi and even Buddha and Jesus but stay away from anything related to wars and military conflicts. >>> Extorc.talk 11:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most disruptive editors insist too much without correcting their problems. @Worldwar1989: Please indicate in your next unblock request if this proposed topic ban from anything related to wars and military conflicts would be acceptable to you. I would also propose a zero revert rule that would prevent reverting any page without a consensus to do so. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Canada–Iraq relations[edit]

Hello, Worldwar1989. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Canada–Iraq relations, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2022 (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).

Worldwar1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can I get review of being blocked from editing on my account, as it has been a few months now and having become more familiar with the rules I am hoping for a second chance now knowing the do's and don'ts of what I can and should not to do. Worldwar1989 (talk) 2:43 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Well, at least you are communicating. Your pledge to only revert a page if you feel it is warranted is not reassuring. That's just what you were doing before. Please describe how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you'd make. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:12, 25 August 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.

If you know the do's and don'ts of what you can and should not do, you need to tell us what those are. Please also tell us if you are amenable to the topic ban idea described above. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one I know I would not undo current revision of an article just because I prefer the previous editions, only if the current page is inferior in quality through disruptive and excessive edit vandalism of the page Worldwar1989 (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[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).

Worldwar1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay well in this case I can promise I will not undo a page without first consulting the talk page and until a consensus has been reached or if it's explicit trolling or spamming on the article and if there is a page that is considered inadequate in information or detail instead of undoing said article I would try to improve upon it and make it better through editing it in ways like by providing verified sources for references. Worldwar1989 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've engaged in sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:29, 28 August 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.

Rather than dive into a review, let me ask you this: Have you read WP:BRD? I'm not being flippant, it's actually a very important essay on how we edit here and sums it up nicely. There are hundreds of thousands of editors here, all jockeying to have their edits stay in articles, which is why we have some basic rules on how to edit in a collegiate fashion. Otherwise, the place would be chaos. Going to the talk page and discussing an edit can be frustrating, particularly when the other party doesn't show up or the edit you are trying to make seems rather obvious, but you still have to do it to demonstrate a willingness to cooperate. This means you have to play "the long game" when editing sometimes, being patient when there is a disagreement, and learning the dispute resolution system here. It isn't perfect, but it is fair to everyone. Have you read this, do you really think you can abide by this? And please explain in full. Inter is the blocking admin, so I will ping them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have browsed it quickly if that's your asking. Worldwar1989 (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the essay you need to read in depth to understand our processes, to understand how to avoid the mess you currently find yourself in. I would suggest a closer and more detailed read because this is exactly what is expected of you, and what you've failed to do in the past, and it ties directly into your unblock request. You would be expected to follow it. Actually, everyone is. Again, I fully understand how frustrating dispute resolution can be with someone who you thing is wrong about an edit, but it's still how we do things because we must to maintain the peace around here. To be clear, I'm not trying to nitpick you, I'm trying to help you get unblocked, but that will only happen if you fully understand both the problem, and the solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what saying and it's something I am willing to work on. Worldwar1989 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked[edit]

You've had 5 declines and started sockpuppeting, as demonstrated by a diffs and a CU. At this point, I can't help but feel you are requesting in bad faith. As such, I've removed talk page access. WP:UTRS would be your only option now, and I don't think that is going to happen until you have least spent 6 months without socking and without requesting an unblock. To any reviewing UTRS admin, I would suggest a CU check the history before considering an unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Canada–Iraq relations[edit]

Hello, Worldwar1989. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Canada–Iraq relations".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Battle of Romny[edit]

Hello, Worldwar1989. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Romny, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Battle of Romny[edit]

Hello, Worldwar1989. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Battle of Romny".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]