User talk:Westerosi456H

Welcome!

Hello, Westerosi456H!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding canvassing rules

Wikipedia is a strange place. Because we have a limited pool of editors, it is not considered appropriate to request comment from only people who are likely to give you the answer you want. See WP:CANVASS. Thus, if you are going to request comments from others, you will have to include everyone who is commenting on that talkpage. This would include LuckyLouie, Foerdi, JoJo Anthrax, and HandThatFeeds, for example. jps (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you I just randomly selected them from the article. I just requested comments from LuckyLiouie and Foerdi as well. Westerosi456H (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. In the future, I would say that asking others directly for comments like this is a little out of the ordinary and may be looked upon as uncouth. If challenged, you'll want to demonstrate what system you used to compile the list of editors to ask. Normally, the safest thing to do is to ask literally every editor who has ever commented on a conversation about the subject. That often makes the entire endeavor unwieldy. If you prefer, you can go to a WP:NOTICEBOARD or to a WP:WIKIPROJECT to ask for help and that is considered better practice and explicitly not canvassing. jps (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you think I appreciate your unsolicited ignorant comments, but in the future please stay in your lane and keep them to yourself, if you want to avoid your behaviour being looked upon as primitive and uncultured. Westerosi456H (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're absolutely wrong and appears that what you're saying is uncivil. The user jps is the one reverting my edits. I have properly discussed the changes in talk page but user jps is not acting in good faith and continually disruptively editing. Westerosi456H (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Westerosi456H (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

sorry but wikipedia rules seem to be confusing and ever changing. :I posted in admin noticeboard the following: :"I think that user @ජපස is calling my actions (possible mistakes made in good faith) were uncouth." :Uncouth definition: (of a person or their appearance or behavior) lacking good manners, refinement, or grace. :administrators told me that it's not considered a personal attack to say that. but when I used the same language in my response it was considered trolling and insulting!! :if that's not the highest degree of double standard, I don't know what is. :therefore I'd like to ask for my block to be rescinded. eventhough I have very little hope of it actually being done, but atleast I can point out the bizzare standards of administrative decisions being done here. :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack Westerosi456H (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

So, what you're describing doing—using language similar to the user who you feel insulted you, to see what happens—is what we call disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. It isn't allowed. That's not an ever-changing Wikipedia rule; it's a universality in human interaction. In the town where I live, there's a general understanding that it's okay to drive down the wrong side of the road if there's pedestrians, cyclists, or parked cars on the right side. If someone were to get upset about that, and found no one agreed with them, and proceeded to drive down the wrong side of the road as much as possible to "prove" the problem with the system, they would probably get a ticket sooner or later.
Note that, in this analogy, the point-prover isn't actually doing the same thing as the others. The same is true here. jps' initial comment to you was anodyne. It is probably the most civil comment I've ever seen someone take exception to on Wikipedia. Your "same language" was nothing of the sort: passive-aggressive, belittling, and just nasty. A personal attack doesn't stop being a personal attack because you put "It may appear to some people that" in front of it. So, please either drop the act and focus on building an encyclopedia, or find a different hobby. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Westerosi456H (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

you're misrepresnenting what I said. The argument that was made in defense of jps by admins was that because he said that some people may consider my behaviour uncivilized, that is not a direct insult, not because of phrase "It may appear to some people that" which you are clearly omiting the other part to misrepresent what I said. Again I'm requesting for my block to be rescinded hoping an admin with integirty is able to do it. Although I'm not holding my breath Westerosi456H (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think it's pretty obvious from this unblock request and the exchange below that you don't belong here. If an admin at UTRS disagrees, I don't care that much what you do – feel free to restore talk page access if you think it's warranted. I'm tired of people like this who lash out at everyone, though. They make life harder for everyone else here. I think that if they can't interact with the other children nicely, it's time to enforce our policies and politely tell them to find a different hobby (or, at least, a different website) where they will fit in better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

And once again you're being deliberately insulting, to some of the most respected admins in the project. We understand you quite clearly, and there are only three possibilities here: that you're trolling us, that you're one of those people for whom the definition of "insult" is anything said that you don't like (but where you feel you have the right to be nasty to other people), or that you're just incapable of understanding what's going on here. In none of those cases would you be fit to participate in this collaborative project. Ravenswing 22:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing obviously the definition of insult and being nasty is very fluid in your view. In mine, saying someone is misprepresenting the facts is not an insult and nasty. the person who is trolling is not me maybe it's you who are showing an obsessive behaviour to shut other people who you disagree with. Lack of capacity for slightest criticism in some admins is extremely bizarre. Some admin are bending over backwards and bending the rules as they go to defend a certain editors digusting behaviours. I just pointed out the hypocricy of admins that allow one offensive comment from a editor they may have bias towards, while attacking others making a similiar comment. Not sure why you think it would devastate me to not be a participant in your dystopian so called "collaborative project" that is clearly empty of logical thinking. Westerosi456H (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)}}[reply]

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.

UTRS appeal #77330

is closed. Let's just leave it at that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #77620

is open. @NinjaRobotPirate and Tamzin:. Restore TPA? Comments? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to you and NRP on TPA; will reserve judgment on the unblock itself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. "was that passive agressive sarcasm sir? Thank you for providing me with an example of what it is so I don't do it myself on wikipedia." If you want to restore talk page access, that's fine with me, but that just makes me think I made the right call. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just here to note block of User:Lonestar-physicist as a checkuser confirmed sock. MrOllie (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoicks! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User not eligible for unblock consideration until March 2, 2024. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now July 29, 2024. Check your local checkuser for latest details. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]