User talk:Jatlin1

Welcome!

Hi Jatlin1! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Favonian (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Har du set min sag? Jeg synes, det er sindssygt korrupt det her sted. Undskyld, hvis man ikke må snakke på dansk. Jeg har rigtignok kommet til at redigere under IP, men hvis man ser de beskeder igennem fra den IP, vil man se, at jeg utallige gange har slettet beskederne fra den IP, fordi jeg har ved en fejl ikke været logget ind. Men alt andet nævnt i begrundelsen har intet substantielt på sig. Jeg synes, det er totalt rystende. Jatlin1 (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation: "Have you seen my case? I think this place is insanely corrupt. Sorry if you are not allowed to speak in Danish. I have indeed come to edit under IP, but if you look through the messages from that IP, you will see that I have deleted the messages from that IP countless times because I was not logged in by mistake. But everything else mentioned in the justification has nothing substantial about it. I find it totally appalling."

Man kunne jo bare have forslået at jeg krydsede boksen "forbliv logget på" af. Jeg ved godt, det er en meget simpel opgave. Den har jeg dog nu fuldført, men hvorfor er der ingen interesse i dialog om problemet? Jeg er rystet. Jatlin1 (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation: "You could have just suggested that I ticked the "remain logged in" box. I know, this is a very simple task. However, I have now completed it, but why is there no interest in dialogue about the problem? I am shaken."

Jatlin, two things. Do not edit without logging in anymore: you have made a large number of edits without logging in and that is disruptive. Second, some of the material you're adding on Talk:Elon Musk is essentially a kind of low-level trolling, because you are asking questions that no one with a modicum of knowledge of how Wikipedia works would ask. So, I strongly suggest you practice editing Wikipedia by working on articles and learn our various policies and guidelines along what way. The stuff on the Musk talk page is disruptive and just creates more work for our volunteer editors who have to address the things you raise. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. ~ HAL333 22:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback guys, @HAL333, @Drmies! Jatlin1 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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. ~ HAL333 20:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the concerns, @HAL333. You have misunderstood the definition of an edit war though. You can read about it here WP:WAR Jatlin1 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. ~ HAL333 05:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not me, lol. Jatlin1 (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Jatlin1! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Favonian (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Har du set min sag? Jeg synes, det er sindssygt korrupt det her sted. Undskyld, hvis man ikke må snakke på dansk. Jeg har rigtignok kommet til at redigere under IP, men hvis man ser de beskeder igennem fra den IP, vil man se, at jeg utallige gange har slettet beskederne fra den IP, fordi jeg har ved en fejl ikke været logget ind. Men alt andet nævnt i begrundelsen har intet substantielt på sig. Jeg synes, det er totalt rystende. Jatlin1 (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation: "Have you seen my case? I think this place is insanely corrupt. Sorry if you are not allowed to speak in Danish. I have indeed come to edit under IP, but if you look through the messages from that IP, you will see that I have deleted the messages from that IP countless times because I was not logged in by mistake. But everything else mentioned in the justification has nothing substantial about it. I find it totally appalling."

Man kunne jo bare have forslået at jeg krydsede boksen "forbliv logget på" af. Jeg ved godt, det er en meget simpel opgave. Den har jeg dog nu fuldført, men hvorfor er der ingen interesse i dialog om problemet? Jeg er rystet. Jatlin1 (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation: "You could have just suggested that I ticked the "remain logged in" box. I know, this is a very simple task. However, I have now completed it, but why is there no interest in dialogue about the problem? I am shaken."

Jatlin, two things. Do not edit without logging in anymore: you have made a large number of edits without logging in and that is disruptive. Second, some of the material you're adding on Talk:Elon Musk is essentially a kind of low-level trolling, because you are asking questions that no one with a modicum of knowledge of how Wikipedia works would ask. So, I strongly suggest you practice editing Wikipedia by working on articles and learn our various policies and guidelines along what way. The stuff on the Musk talk page is disruptive and just creates more work for our volunteer editors who have to address the things you raise. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. ~ HAL333 22:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback guys, @HAL333, @Drmies! Jatlin1 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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. ~ HAL333 20:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the concerns, @HAL333. You have misunderstood the definition of an edit war though. You can read about it here WP:WAR Jatlin1 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. ~ HAL333 05:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not me, lol. Jatlin1 (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing 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) 14:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I been blocked without any reason? Jatlin1 (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is virtually nothing substantial in that other than editing from IP, but if you notice the history of contributions from that IP, you will notice that I have tried to delete all recent messages from that IP because I have mistakenly written from IP. So nothing suggests that I have had any intentions of being deceptive. This is not justified. Jatlin1 (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2022 (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).

Jatlin1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The basis and evidence behind the reason of my block seems extremely thin and unsubstantiated except editing from IP, but if you notice the history of contributions from that IP (mentioned in the reason of block), you will notice that I have deleted all then-recent messages from that IP because I accidentally wrote from IP. So nothing suggests that I have had any intentions of being deceptive - nor have I actually been deceptive because these messages have very quickly been deleted right after posting them. I have also marked the box "Keep being logged on" now! And I will continue to be aware of the importance of having this box marked, thanks. I don't agree that I have participated in edit warring. I have tried to enter dialogue about every single issue - the opposite hasn't been true, sadly. Some people have not wanted to enter any dialogue, but have reverted my edits without any attempts to enter a dialogue. I have dealt with this problem (with regards to failed dialogue) thoroughly here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jatlin1_reported_by_User:HAL333_(Result:_Indefinitely_blocked) in my response to HAL333. I don't see that I have participated in disruptive editing in any way. There is absolutely no evidence of that. I admit that I could have dealt with disagreements more efficiently, for example, by taking inspiration from some of those "cycles" outlined in WP:BRD, thanks. Additional note: It might appear like I reduce the issue of writing from IP - the truth is that I wrote from multiple IP's before making this account (because I don't always stay the same place), but in all instances I declared my identity, for example, calling myself "Copenhagen University IP", thanks. I even announced when I created my own account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#Copenhagen_University_IP (notice how CactiStaccingCrane refers to me as Copenhagen University IP) . Jatlin1 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Everything here was a waste of time--between the IP editing, the trolling, the throwing around of blue policy links, the edit warring (even without breaking 3RR), the many many many posts including forum posts: net negative. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2022 (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.

I've translated your Danish comments, one from much earlier, and one from a bit ago. Please do not post any more comments in Danish here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2022 (UT

Black Kite, you are writing "Since it turns out that the registered account and the multiple IPs that have been raising issues in this section are all the same person, and that editor has now been blocked, it appears logical to close this before they find their way here with yet another IP." Black Kite, all my messages from other IP's are from before I made a new account. Whilst it is true that I accidentally wrote new messages from my IP after I created my account, all those messages were deleted very quickly. I don't like you suggest that I'm being deceptive around my personality when that is completely unsubstantiated. I even wrote in the BLP thread: "I agree with everything. I'm the person who wrote this thread[...]". I'm being completely transparent, so I would suggest you to retract your suggestions. Yes, I have written from multiple IP's before creating my account, but I have always been transparent and called myself "Copenhagen University IP" or in other ways declared I'm the same personality. I know this hasn't been very practical, but I have only been on Wikipedia for 2 weeks, and suggestions about that I have intented to deceive have no basis in any way.

Zaereth, you wrote on Elon Musk thread on BLP board "If you think the problem is editor behavior, then you're at the wrong noticeboard. That's what ANI is for. This board is for BLP violations, yet you have shown me no such violations here?" I have sent examples of violations of BLP policies. BLP policies must adhere, for example, to verifiability. In this thread I point out how information is not verified https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#The_entire_sentence_%22Musk's_statements_have_provoked_controversy_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources. I will suggest you to ctrl+f. I have no idea about how to make a link that directs you to the specific section, sorry - if you think that is a problem, and you don't wanna ctrl+f, then please explain how I can do that, thanks

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Jatlin1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My reasons have been stated in my first request, but the first request was reviewed by an admin, Drmies , who has been involved in discussions with me , for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#The_entire_sentence_%22Musk's_statements_have_provoked_controversy_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources (please use ctrl+f). Drmies appears very conscending, and in the first case Drmies completely ignores a case of potential violation of BLP policies and instead talks about leading statements, but the material I was questioning was not leading statements. Drmies calls my contributions trolling. I don't recognize that in any way. I have been very serious and even "researched" the history of revisions on Elon Musk article and found "COI material" with regards to Cher Scarrlet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#%22[...]_along_with_deleting_his_responses_to_critical_tweets_from_Cher_Scarlett_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources (please ctrl+f "COI on Cher Scarlett "). Please, I want an admin who isn't involved to review my case, thanks. Jatlin1 (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2022 (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.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=My reasons have been stated in my first request, but the first request was reviewed by an admin, [[User:Drmies|Drmies ]], who has been involved in discussions with me , for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#The_entire_sentence_%22Musk's_statements_have_provoked_controversy_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources (please use ctrl+f). Drmies appears very conscending, and in the first case Drmies completely ignores a case of potential violation of BLP policies and instead talks about leading statements, but the material I was questioning was not leading statements. Drmies calls my contributions trolling. I don't recognize that in any way. I have been very serious and even "researched" the history of revisions on Elon Musk article and found "COI material" with regards to Cher Scarrlet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#%22[...]_along_with_deleting_his_responses_to_critical_tweets_from_Cher_Scarlett_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources (please ctrl+f "COI on Cher Scarlett "). Please, I want an admin who isn't involved to review my case, thanks.  [[User:Jatlin1|Jatlin1]] ([[User talk:Jatlin1#top|talk]]) 01:59, 17 December 2022 (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=My reasons have been stated in my first request, but the first request was reviewed by an admin, [[User:Drmies|Drmies ]], who has been involved in discussions with me , for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#The_entire_sentence_%22Musk's_statements_have_provoked_controversy_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources (please use ctrl+f). Drmies appears very conscending, and in the first case Drmies completely ignores a case of potential violation of BLP policies and instead talks about leading statements, but the material I was questioning was not leading statements. Drmies calls my contributions trolling. I don't recognize that in any way. I have been very serious and even "researched" the history of revisions on Elon Musk article and found "COI material" with regards to Cher Scarrlet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#%22[...]_along_with_deleting_his_responses_to_critical_tweets_from_Cher_Scarlett_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources (please ctrl+f "COI on Cher Scarlett "). Please, I want an admin who isn't involved to review my case, thanks.  [[User:Jatlin1|Jatlin1]] ([[User talk:Jatlin1#top|talk]]) 01:59, 17 December 2022 (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=My reasons have been stated in my first request, but the first request was reviewed by an admin, [[User:Drmies|Drmies ]], who has been involved in discussions with me , for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#The_entire_sentence_%22Musk's_statements_have_provoked_controversy_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources (please use ctrl+f). Drmies appears very conscending, and in the first case Drmies completely ignores a case of potential violation of BLP policies and instead talks about leading statements, but the material I was questioning was not leading statements. Drmies calls my contributions trolling. I don't recognize that in any way. I have been very serious and even "researched" the history of revisions on Elon Musk article and found "COI material" with regards to Cher Scarrlet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#%22[...]_along_with_deleting_his_responses_to_critical_tweets_from_Cher_Scarlett_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources (please ctrl+f "COI on Cher Scarlett "). Please, I want an admin who isn't involved to review my case, thanks.  [[User:Jatlin1|Jatlin1]] ([[User talk:Jatlin1#top|talk]]) 01:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

note: I accidentally confused Drmies with Zaereth. My bad. The name of Zaereth only stood in the second unblock request for one minute

Attacking the reviewing administrator is never a good idea, and your allegation that Drmies is WP:INVOLVED because of his comments in that discussion are patently silly. He was trying to give you good advice as an administrator, not as an editor, but your failure to understand then - and now - makes you challenge anyone who criticizes your approach to editing here and to discussing the problems with your edits. I'm going to let your unblock request stand, but I am giving you fair warning that you are very close to having Talk page access revoked if you continue down this road. When unblocked, you were wasting many editors' time, and post-block, you are doing the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the inputs. I don't understand how this comment is constructive The article is full of well-verified controversy. "Have provoked controversy" is actually the understatement of the year. in any way or have a sincere purpose. I might have misunderstood his/her/their intentions though, sorry if so. If this request gets declined, I will go other paths and not disturb admins further, ofc. -Jatlin1

You complained that a statement in the lead about controversy wasn't verified. I explained that such a statement in the lead needs no verification as long as the article contains the information with proper sourcing--in this case "well-verified controversy". If you think it is somehow odd of me to say that Musk's statement cause controversy on an almost daily basis, please listen to the radio and play the internet. He's in the news almost every single day, and it's always controversial. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... For the third time, I was not complaing about a statement in the lead. The lead is defined as:

The lead section of a Wikipedia article—also known as the lead, beginning or introduction—is the section before the table of contents and the first heading

I was talking about

Musk's statements have provoked controversy, such as for mocking preferred gender pronouns, and comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler.

which doesn't stand in the lead.

With regards to the lead, I do think it is odd of various reasons, one is WP:RECENT, but that's another discussion. Jatlin1 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jatlin1

Welcome!

Edit warring

Archives

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Welcome!

Edit warring

Archives

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

December 2022