117.197.85.21

April 2014

Hello, I'm Katieh5584. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Masaurhi seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Katieh5584 (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

August 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at WikiIslam. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. This topic is under discussion. There is not consensus as yet. Your proposed change has already been undone one, so stop adding it. Meters (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at WikiIslam 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Snuish (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

September 2022

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have not edited the main Wikipedia page for 24 hours and previously only edited it three times based on a perceived consensus on the talk page. I appear to have judged wrongly, and explained that I will just ask the people on the talk page themselves to edit the article since no one accept the page owners are apparently supposed to edit it. I doubt this block was necessary to prevent disruption on the main page. I also doubt my attempts to explain my position on talk were disruptive. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 6:02 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

User:Snuish2, I have no connection to any other editor who was previously edited the WikiIslam page or it's talk page, nor do I have any connection to any American organisation. In any case, focus on the arguments I have put forward, not me. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to believe that you are not the same person who was using 117.251.198.179 (talk · contribs · count) a few days ago. Same ISP, same city, same issue with WikiIslam, same talk page tone... Meters (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Duh, that's obviously me. All IPs in that section are me, I'm not sure how many times my IP changed in those ten days. I meant Sniush2's allegation that I'm one of the previous people who edited on EXMNA's behalf. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I first edited the page ten days ago, removing Islamophobic, and engaged on the specific section titled "Islamophobic" on the talk page. I have not made any edits prior to that on WikiIslam or it's talk. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

So, your statement in your unblock request wrt Wikislam that you had "previously only edited it three times based on a perceived consensus on the talk page" is completely incorrect. You twice made major deletions to the article as 117.251.198.179, before any supposed talk page consensus [1] [2]. My WP:AGF is done. Meters (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• I also doubt my attempts to explain my position on talk were disruptive. Really? Your edits on the Talk page were increasingly combative; I lost track of the number of times you used the word fuck or some derivation of it. As an aside, I did not block you for block evasion; if I had, it would be the notice and/or block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think using swears is disruptive. I would describe my attitude as "frustrated" rather than combative. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

    You are wrong about that. ..Never edit when you are so angry or frustrated that you lose self control. On that basis, I'm surprised you are only blocked for 48 hours. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and include what you learn in your next unblock request. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NebulaOblongata, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. — Newslinger talk 01:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:NebulaOblongata per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NebulaOblongata. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

---