User talk:Futhark1988

Welcome!

Hello, Futhark1988! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

February 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Futhark1988. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2020 (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).

Futhark1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Kbb2 does clearly not speak the Hungarian whereas I do therefore know for a fact that the Near-open front unrounded vowel does not exist in Hungarian. I tried to explain it to him, I even cited the Hungarian phonology pages, but he stubbornly refused to listen to reason. Therefore I got a bit mad, edited his page as a prank, for which I have even apologized to him, but he still reported me. As all books around the world Tamas Szende's has flaws and errors, but just because he wrote a book does not mean that he is 100% right. Kbb2 did not open a discussion about it where we could have an "adult" debate/conversation about the topic. And I did start a discussion because I know that I am write and I didn't want to cite books that Kbb2 would not purchase or accept. The books referenced on Hungarian phonology should have been more than enough to settle things once and for all. But now that I writing this "unblock reason" I just realized that it is true what they say: "If an idiot shout loud enough, he will get whatever his heart desires." I learned from my mistake so I humbly ask you to unblock me. But still, claiming that a 25-30 is absolutely right, no matter what other pages and actual natives (like myself) say, is just madness. I actually think that Wikipedians should only be allowed to edit pages in those languages that they speak. I know it's a "free" encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean that every contribution is helpful.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:SOCK. This, and only this, is relevant to your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2020 (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.

Yes, I did: [1].

The WP:BURDEN to name the exact source that contradicts Szende and simultaneously meets the WP:RS criteria is on you. Using sockpuppets and harassing me will get you nowhere. You're wrong about the absence of [æ] in Hungarian, you're confusing cardinal vowels for actual vowels. The near-open front unrounded vowel doesn't have to be transcribed with ⟨æ⟩, both ⟨ɛ⟩ and ⟨a⟩ are also used. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add the references of the Hungarian phonology page, all of them if necessary, and every site that has to do with it, but you had me blocked without and actual discussion. If you want to discuss the matter face-to-face, I will gladly pay you a trip to Budapest.

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).

Futhark1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not know anything about sock puppetry up until now. I was actually trying to explain what has led to it. I apologize for all of it and promise to never do it again.

Decline reason:

Duplicate unblock requeest. ST47 (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2020 (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).

Futhark1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not know anything about sock puppetry up until now. I was actually trying to explain what has led to it. I apologize for all of it and promise to never do it again.

Decline reason:

Given that (and per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Futhark1988/Archive) you used the second account in an attempt to evade WP:3RR, I simply don't believe this. Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2020 (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 fixed your unblock request for you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2020 (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).

Futhark1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not know anything about sock puppetry. I didn't even know the term, because I rarely make any edits, and I am not a butt-hurt beaurocrat, so I didn't read every single rule. Blocking me is actually a form of punishment, and of abuse of authority. I already apologized for all of it and if that is not enough than that means Wikipedia has become just as toxic as Reddit. I would like to settle the argument (which led to this) by involving a third person (Third Opinion).

Decline reason:

Calling people "butt-hurt beaurocrat" is not a valid use of your talk page. ST47 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2020 (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.

UTRS

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Futhark1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #29026 was submitted on 2020-02-17 22:13:25. This review is now closed.

UTRS appeal #45801 declined. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]