User talk:Wwew345t

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Sam Sailor 18:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nabi Tajima. 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. Thank you. Sam Sailor 18:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your threats mean nothing to me you don't edit anything longevity related so you don't know what's going on before you say I don't either I do I've been to several sites about longevity Wwew345t (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Julie Winnefred Bertrand 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. Technopat (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh yes I'm sure the people who haven't edited on the topic in 5+ years will care enough to agrue Wwew345t (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joan Riudavets. Technopat (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sailor Sam reverted my pages because in his opinion they shouldn't have been restored even tthough they didn't go through a afd very fair for me to get blocked Wwew345t (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh yes very fair I restore pages that weren't deleted probably then Sam salior reverts all of,them for the sole pourpose of i agree with it and I get blocked Wwew345t (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final, good faith warning...[edit]

Hi Wwew345t! You are currently involved in major edit-warring, for which there is a serious risk of your account being blocked. Whatever the issues at stake, please desist in this behaviour and engage other users in meaningful discussion to reach a case-by-case consensus. Thank you. Technopat (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sam salior edited 0 pages on longeivty until he reverted all my edits half of them weren't even deleted properly (therefore should be restored) Wwew345t (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC) how fun as soon as I restore pages that people don't really edit a bunch of people who probably didn't even know the topic exist dogpile on me[reply]

WOw[edit]

amazing how quickly some person who has no clue about the topic he is editing in reverts all my edits of pages that weren't deleted properly because of his opinion and I get blocked Wwew345t (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist...[edit]

You are entitled, as per the block template, to appeal said block. However, please be advised that your edits here since then may lead to undesired consequences. Technopat (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its the truth Sam salior had no basis for reverting most of my edits other then his opinion Wwew345t (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment.--Technopat (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

im not looking to start a edit war some pages were redericted without a afd (and several were deleted that shouldn't have been) and I'm trying to restore them so if it must happen it can be done properly Wwew345t (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Technopat Wwew345t (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...... Wwew345t (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Technopat I'm attempting to talk peacefullly with you it doesn't make sense to keep a 5 year old redercit because i need a consensus when there wasn't a discussion about adding said readerect in the article Wwew345t (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Technopat ok then so for some reason your gonna support someone's vandalism of my restorations of pages on the grounds of i agree with it because I need a consensus even though there wasn't a consensus on the redirect (therefore said redercit shouldn't be there) and when I ask for a discussion with you instead of doing that you very 'civally' threaten to have me blocked. Wwew345t (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

..[edit]

can someone please block technopat he his undoing all my edits for no reason and is refusing to talk to me @admin Wwew345t (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did do something agressive to start but I stopped in a attempt to make peace he continued to threaten me and then ignored me refusing to talk to me about the issue (which was me restoring pages that eere redercited without a afd) Wwew345t (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

im not trying to do a edit war but I'm so confused because it seems to me like I'm being called out for just trying to restore pages that were deleted/redercited without a afd can a @admin tell me what I'm doing wrong? Wwew345t (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need help[edit]

can someone tell me how to start a discussion to restore a page that got deleted by a afd? 5 years ago some editors dogpiled on longevity pages and I think some of them could be expanded to be more detailed and cited if they are restored Wwew345t (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Thank you for your messages on my talk page. As for your first comment, regarding "talking", I have already pointed out how and where to talk. Regarding the feeling you have that I'm "messing" with you, I can assure you that nothing is further from my mind. I value my time too much to waste it "messing" with anyone.

As for your second message, I'm not "blaming" you for an edit war. I pointed out the facts that you were engaged in one and it turns out that you are repeating the same behaviour that got you blocked for edit-warring. I have explained to you how to solve the issues involved. Whether or not you choose to do so is entirely up to you. Technopat (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see now that you have left me several messages on this talk page and elsewhere. Half of them I simply don't understand. However, as some of them are downright rude and you have simply continued with your edit warring, my original thought of asking you to explain what you mean has since given way to not wanting to bother. The bottom line of all of the above: you go your way and please do not bother to contact me again. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Oldest people. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff[edit]

@DerbyCountyinNZ I know you dont like me but the first think that the other user in the edit war did was immediately disregard what you said and re insert ille Ciocan Wwew345t (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]