Contents

User talk:Denarivs: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:17, 26 February 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Noel Ignatiev. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Physical removal, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an "attack page", and appears to be primarily intended to disparage or threaten its subject. This includes biographies of living people that are unsourced and entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks; attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
• It is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. (See section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourcedorpoorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Noel Ignatiev, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every claim I made was already in the article (and well sourced.) Denarivs (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Denarivs reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable or unwilling to engage in the talk page discussion and continue to revert, you are simply edit warring. I started a discussion and you have chosen to ignore it and repeatedly revert. Your history shows a pattern of behavior on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 14:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I did respond to you on the talk page. And none of those words are in the article now anyways, so there shouldn't be any problem. Denarivs (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you reverted (again). Your response was minimal other than saying basically your wrong. That's not a discussion it's a declaration. Your edits were bold, and two people have reverted and you are still edit warring. -- GreenC 23:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with the ongoing, slow-burning edit war there; it seems to have been going on since last week. It's been noticed. Go to the article talk page and discuss why / why not the RAF were left wing or communists. Cheers! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Rojava shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What you have produced is a long history of POV edits, BLP violations, edit wars, and now disruptive nonsense edits on Cult of Kek, for instance--this, this, and this. Interested administrators will note the really funny edit summaries. They will also note that your edits ("Kek is worshiped through repetition of the phrase "praise kek"", last diff) attempt to invent a reality where there is none ("lulz"), uses ridiculous sourcing make something look verified (the second diff, last section), and otherwise inserts nonsense into encyclopedic articles (first diff, the Germanwings stuff, for instance). Drmies (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I've made hundreds of substantive edits (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hezbollah_armed_strength&action=history) over four years and the information I added to the article in question was all sourced to reliable sources. The first link was adding information that was a summary of the linked sources and is a fairly central part of this subject. Reliable sources (eg. http://baltimore-art.com/2017/02/11/the-aesthetics-of-the-alt-right/) substantively support everything I've added. I wrote a 10000 character article with dozens of sources and you say I'm "clearly" not here to contribute? Denarivs (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I've made hundreds of substantive edits (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hezbollah_armed_strength&action=history) over four years and the information I added to the article in question was all sourced to reliable sources. The first link was adding information that was a summary of the linked sources and is a fairly central part of this subject. Reliable sources (eg. http://baltimore-art.com/2017/02/11/the-aesthetics-of-the-alt-right/) substantively support everything I've added. I wrote a 10000 character article with dozens of sources and you say I'm "clearly" not here to contribute? [[User:Denarivs|Denarivs]] ([[User talk:Denarivs#top|talk]]) 20:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've made hundreds of substantive edits (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hezbollah_armed_strength&action=history) over four years and the information I added to the article in question was all sourced to reliable sources. The first link was adding information that was a summary of the linked sources and is a fairly central part of this subject. Reliable sources (eg. http://baltimore-art.com/2017/02/11/the-aesthetics-of-the-alt-right/) substantively support everything I've added. I wrote a 10000 character article with dozens of sources and you say I'm "clearly" not here to contribute? [[User:Denarivs|Denarivs]] ([[User talk:Denarivs#top|talk]]) 20:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've made hundreds of substantive edits (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hezbollah_armed_strength&action=history) over four years and the information I added to the article in question was all sourced to reliable sources. The first link was adding information that was a summary of the linked sources and is a fairly central part of this subject. Reliable sources (eg. http://baltimore-art.com/2017/02/11/the-aesthetics-of-the-alt-right/) substantively support everything I've added. I wrote a 10000 character article with dozens of sources and you say I'm "clearly" not here to contribute? [[User:Denarivs|Denarivs]] ([[User talk:Denarivs#top|talk]]) 20:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}