User talk:Ofihombre

Welcome!

Hello, Ofihombre, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning[edit]

Ofihombre - this is your only warning. You do not get to remove AfD notices! Instead, go and comment on the article's AfD discussion page. By moving the article you have made it necessary for me to nominate it again. If you mess with that nomination in a similar vein, I will get administrator assistance and make sure that disruption stops for some time. --!Elmidae (talk · contribs)

You did childish moves to Fix-It Felix Jr and you have removed the AfD tag twice. These were acts of vandalism. If you are not prepared to have the article discussed at AfD and to accept the decision if the AfD closes with "redirect", then the only solution will be to block you indefinitely. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Iffy★Chat -- 19:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've noticed you haven't been signing comments you've left in discussions[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

I (and others) have been adding templates that sign the messages for you, so you shouldn't need to go back to sign old comments but this is something to remember for the future. Thanks! - Purplewowies (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring Comments[edit]

Stop adding *Comment: to everything. --Tarage (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note you reverted Tarage after the warning above. I've undone your changes. You may clarify and label your own posts but touch another editor's post again in any way and you'll find yourself blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to User:Zxcvbnm— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:23, 17 January 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

It was an anger without reason and a desperate measure, sorry, I really wanted to answer and criticize those who think otherwise about me, about an article that I recently made. I simply erased because I was afraid. Ofihombre (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, you clearly need to stay blocked until that AfD is done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I swear this is just a misunderstanding, I'm a little sorry about the decision to delete information from other users as a coward. Because of me, I've got hundreds of autoblocks and a bad reputation in Wikipedia. I swear that I'm going to make things better, and not get into trouble. All I want is to improve and edit the article that the AfD is set. Sorry, please <:(

Decline reason:

This is not a misunderstanding, this is you being deliberately disruptive, immediately after coming off of a previous block for vandalism. There's nothing wrong with this block, it's necessary to protect Wikipedia. Sit out the block and consider this your final warning before an indefinite block follows, if you continue to edit in this manner. Yamla (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Isn't it a bad thing to block a person for others to erase a thousand articles? Basically there is no teaching, those who become worse people, That encourages more corruption and removing the freedom of Wikipedia, allowing items that need help to disappear. Seriously it was by fear and cowardice, not for revenge. I feel sorry for my situation so far, but you never understand me, because I'm just a new user who made his first article, and it didn't work out as expected. I took myself too seriously about the opinions that were against me, I'm sorry. Reject as you can, because you will never know my own feelings, because I'm just a misunderstood novice. Ofihombre (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you continue to make unblock requests which do not address the reason for your block, your access to edit this page will be revoked for the duration of the block. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:31, 17 January 2018 (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.

It is perfectly reasonable to block people who are deliberately vandalising Wikipedia after promising not to. People have been more than patient with you, tried over and over to teach you, and you've gone out of your way to disrupt things. You don't seem to accept that it is your behaviour which is the problem here. I'll warn you, rather than being unblocked, you are very likely to see your block extended indefinitely in order to protect Wikipedia. Stop, step back, read the policies and guidelines people have linked you to, and try to understand why your edits have been inappropriate. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing what Yamla said above: there's a difference between making mistakes in good faith (such as accidentally adding content incorrectly or that isn't up to par with Wikipedia guidelines) and deliberately engaging in vandalism and disruptive editing with the intent of causing disruption to the project (such as the edits here and here that you made to other editors' user spaces). We expect good faith mistakes and issues to happen with new editors and we understand and try to help and educate them as much as we can. We do not tolerate vandalism and deliberate attempts to disrupt the project. The first edit I saw that concerned me was your edit here, which I saw as problematic but not necessarily in bad faith... but once you made the additional two edits I linked above, there was no question that you were editing pages in order to be disruptive. These two edits alone could justify an indefinite block, which you were very close to receiving instead of the block duration that I gave you. Many new users that cause the same exact kind of disruption like this usually wind up indefinitely blocked. The fact that you're being given a third chance, and after you've been blocked twice for disruption and within just a few days of one another - is not something I see very often at all. I urge you to please please take this time to sincerely think about your actions and reflect upon them, re-evaluate your behavior and why you're in this situation, understand what you must do in order to avoid repeating them, and use this last chance you're being given to turn things around. I really sincerely hope that you do. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So all this hasn't helped me at all? You are too hard with people looking to learn from their mistakes after a move like that. In my opinion, blocking does not give any teaching, it just makes things worse. you learn from your mistakes when you are aware that you are doing it wrong, not because nobody imposes it on you screaming. Although the long blocks, are moments to reflect. If so, I will end up yielding.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofihombre (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your username[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Ofihombre", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username, by completing this form, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: They know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC) @SarekOfVulcan: Fix ping --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, but the edit summary indicated they didn't get it. I was hoping the wording in the template would make more sense to them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I know it's whatever now because of the indef (which I don't disagree with) for a slightly different reason but) I'm not sure I completely get it. (I mean, I do, on a level, but... I also don't.) The links I've seen for this guy read like... personal projects and blog posts. If I run a blog under the same username I use here (which I did, at one point (after this account had been established), until I had to change the blog title to avoid someone), does my name here suddenly qualify as promotional and need to be changed? This reads like that to me and doesn't feel "unambiguous", it just feels like someone playing around and using the same username everywhere on the internet. If that makes sense. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to complete my request to change the username, because I'm still blocked by disruptive editing. Ofihombre (talk •contribs) 18:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Yamla told you, you can do that once your block expires. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns now about the neutrality of the article in question. If this user is indeed the same as the owner of this website: https://ofihombre.itch.io/fix-it-felix-jr then that entire article is a COI mess and should be salted after it's deleted. --Tarage (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just put in a COI for putting a lie like that, the game article isn't based on my version, just as they say it's just the fan remake. As Elmidae said. Ofihombre (talk •contribs) 8:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Attempting to conceal your conflict of interest by removing other editors' comments is pretty much the last straw on this. I have extended your block to indefinite, since, based on this behaviour, your edit history and the discussions above, it is evident that you are not cognisant of the problems with your editing. You can return to editing once you show in an unblock appeal that you are aware of the problematic nature of your edits and once you convince a reviewing administrator that the issues will not re-occur. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in block evasion, as 83.57.114.170 (talk · contribs). That substantially reduces the possibility of a future unblock. --Yamla (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]