FactAddict69
Hello, FactAddict69, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
- Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
- Check out some of these pages:
- If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
- Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
- In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
- Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
- Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing). - In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
- If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
January 2023
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Jihadism have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Jihadism was changed by FactAddict69 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.927195 on 2023-01-28T04:40:07+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Niqāb, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at 0. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I’ve protected 0
editSort it out on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
ok sir FactAddict69 (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
edit
You have recently been editing India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Notification: Blocked
edit
{{unblock|your reason here}} below this notice. Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Request for unblock
edit
FactAddict69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am a sincere Wikipedia editor and only edit those what i find really necessary and with sources. In the second last edit (about zero) i was technically correct. i explained in detail why i edited that. that edit was to maintain neutrality of Wikipedia. Mr Ollie took it personally, maybe due to his personal interests and attacked me by saying “Nonsense Nationalist” but no one batted an eye. why? because he is an administrator? How can i be a “Indian Nationalist” when i am not even Indian? After Doug weller sent me the notification, i refrained from making any potentially disruptive edits. but Mr Material Scientist decided to block me. You can review all of my edits and please let me know what i did wrong. And please Unblock me.
thanks for your time FactAddict69 (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
MrOllie is not an administrator. If you are not Indian, okay, but it's not unreasonable to think so given your editing. I think you misunderstand neutrality, as well as how to resolve disputes with your editing. I'm not seeing a reason here to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2023 (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.
you saw no reason to unblock. but was there any reason to block in the first place? Okay i agree to be more careful next time while editing. now can you please remove the block. FactAddict69 (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Unblock request
edit FactAddict69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Okay I apologise for repeatedly editing (while being correct) and not discussing the matter on talk page, so I promise to be sensible from next time. you can review my previous block request and my second last edit for more knowledge. thanks
Decline reason:
Your block was certainly appropriate and nothing here convinces me otherwise. See WP:GAB to understand what we are looking for in an unblock request. Continuing to insist you were correct is actively harming your chances. Yamla (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2023 (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.
Unblock request after reviewing all Wikipedia guidelines and rules
edit FactAddict69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was unaware of the rules for making edits with elegancy and in a suitable manner. I have familiarised myself with all the rules now and will confidently follow them. I had no intention for committing vandalism of any type. From now on i will refrain from making any disruptive edits and will discuss potentially disruptive edits prior on talk page. My account is new and I was learning the basics of contributing to the Wikipedia. I request to unblock my account so I can continue to improve articles by editing them with reliable sources, and promise to abide by all community rules if unblocked. FactAddict69 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You're a 
Confirmed sock puppet of User:The Nerdy science. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2023 (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.
The Administrators themselves said me to make a new start.
edit FactAddict69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Though i confirm that i am the same person as The Nerdy Science but the administrators themselves said to me to commit a fresh new start. This is not sockpuppetry. I learned many things from that and this account and improved myself very much you can check for yourself edits in this account are much less disruptive than that account. As i've mentioned in my previous request that i have read all the guidelines of Wikipedia. Please give me a chance as i am new editor. I thereby plead to review and unblock me. Thanks
Decline reason:
There is no indication that any admin told you to commit a fresh new start. I'm removing talk page access at this point, as you do not understand why you were blocked, and you are being dishonest about your new account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2023 (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.