User talk:NextEditor123

Welcome!

Hello, NextEditor123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preview

Howdy NextEditor123!

I noticed that you self-revert quite often. Do you know that when editing an article, next to the "publish changes" button there is a "show preview button" which will show you how your changes affect an article. Might make editing smoother. Best, 165.1.194.41 (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning players

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning players requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning players. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article that was just deleted is disruptive. Please stop or you will be blocked again @NextEditor123. Star Mississippi 17:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for edit warring and went right back to it, on Kingsley Coman and other articles--if you had bothered to properly explain your edits and reverts, before and after the last block, you might not be blocked indefinitely now. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies, I did not start edit warring right there. I only had two reverts in article Yannick Carrasco. I apologize if I broke rules. NextEditor123 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and 3RR are NOT the same thing (edit warring is a characteristic of someone's editing; it's not about a rule). Look at your contributions in the history of that Coman article: you're just rolling them back without explaining. This will not do. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies, I wrote explanations about my edits in comment section. I wrote several times that we cannot include UEFA Super Cup 2020 as there is a consensus about calls up for super cups. He was not called up for the match. Coman's profile in Soccerway, which is used for the Wikipedia article, does not mention that he is Serie A 2015-16 winner at all. Therefore, no sources were given for that statement there. NextEditor123 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. In the Coman history I see, I think, 14 reverts, of which only two have explanations. The last one, from today, says "follow consensus, NOR", without even a hint of what that means here. If there was consensus against the IP's edits, it was because you reverted them a dozen times. Same with Carrasco, where you reverted three times, not two, and all you said was "WP:NOR" in the first one. If you want to return to editing you will have to commit to doing better in explaining what you are doing and why, and I'm wondering if you shouldn't be on a 1RR exemption. Please consider that before placing an unblock request. No need to ping me: I placed the block, I will not decide on an unblock. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2023 (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).

NextEditor123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked because I did not "give explanations" for my editings according to Drmies. I apologize for my actions. I already explained once in edits' comment sections about reasoning for edits. Then I only wrote links for consensuses or Wikipedia rules like no originar research. But it seems that it did not work. There are consensuses that I followed about players' non participations in super cups. They can't be included in honour section of players in their articles according to it. There were many mistakes in honour section like giving players a title which were not confirmed by primary sources like Coman with Serie A in 2015-16 for example or Carrasco for UEL in 2018. I tried to explain to other unauthorized users which refused to cooperate. I accept that my actions were not diplomatic in the website. I should use talk section of Wikipedia articles more often for avoiding situations like that. I was also trying to appeal to UTRS but I did not get any response. Who can I contact to? NextEditor123 (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you have access to your user talk page, you correctly appealled here, UTRS is only for if you lose access to this page or your request involves sensitive information. As Drmies suggested above, I don't see much of a pathway forward here without a 1RR restriction. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2023 (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).

NextEditor123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

According to the admins, I was blocked indefinitely from further editing due to my disruptive edits in some football players' articles as I got myself into the edit warring with one of IP users without paying attention to a violation of the three-revert rule. I am not denying that I made wrong moves that contradict the rules of Wikipedia community. I apologize for my behavior there. If there are gonna be big disagreements about editing for one Wikipedia pages, I will use the articles' talk pages first to solve the further arguments. I actually want to be useful for Wikipedia community. I can help to verify and check information for the articles. Fix sources links and add missing ones. I can work with categorizations of the pages as well. I can fix pages with adding absent needed citation links for articles about History of film, ACF Fiorentina and Dzungaria. You can give me tasks about making the categorizations of the specific themes of articles (expect about politics). I will try to do any tasks or something that is needed to get back a trust from the Wikipedia community. NextEditor123 (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not without a WP:1RR restriction. Yamla (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2024 (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).

NextEditor123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

According to the admins, I was blocked indefinitely from further editing due to my disruptive edits in some football players' articles as I got myself into the edit warring with one of IP users without paying attention to a violation of the three-revert rule. I am not denying that I made wrong moves that contradict the rules of Wikipedia community. I apologize for my behavior there. If there are gonna be big disagreements about editing for one Wikipedia pages, I will use the articles' talk pages first to solve the further arguments. I actually want to be useful for Wikipedia community. I can help to verify and check information for the articles. Fix sources links and add missing ones. I can work with categorizations of the pages as well. I can fix pages with adding absent needed citation links for articles about History of film, ACF Fiorentina and Dzungaria. You can give me tasks about making the categorizations of the specific themes of articles (except about politics). I will try to do any tasks or something that is needed to get back a trust from the Wikipedia community. I accept implementing the one-revert rule to my Wikipedia account as well. NextEditor123 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I find this thoroughly unconvincing. When your last block expired, you immediately resumed the problematic behaviour that had made the block necessary. That's not lack of attention. You're not going to regain trust by mischaracterizing the problem to make it seem more like an honest mistake. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2024 (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).

NextEditor123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked indefinitely from further editing due to my disruptive edits and edit warring with one of IP users on articles about football players. I failed to engage in consensus building and attempted to illustrate a point while violating the Wikipedia guidelines. I recognize that I breached some policies of the Wikipedia community like WP:FAITH, WP:POINT, WP:TALK and WP:TECHNICAL. I apologize for my behavior there. I resumed this improper behavior that led me to the indefinite block because I didn't grasp fully the importance of these policies at that time. I want to be useful for the Wikipedia community and will be committed to follow the guidelines. If there are gonna be big disagreements arising about editing one of Wikipedia articles, I will engage in constructive discussions on the articles' talk pages first to solve the further arguments and reach consensus. I will avoid edit warrings and disruptive edits through this method. I will accept implementing the one-revert rule to my Wikipedia account as well. In addition to them, I can help to verify and check information for the articles. Fix sources links and add missing ones. I can also work with categorizations of the pages as well. I can fix pages with adding absent needed citation links for articles about History of film, ACF Fiorentina and Dzungaria. You can give me tasks about making the categorizations of the specific themes of articles. I will try to do any tasks or something that is needed to get back a trust from the Wikipedia community. I value being part of it and hope to contribute positively in the future.

Decline reason:

On paper, this unblock says the right things. However, the behavior preceding it, followed by multiple requests one after another, followed by repeatedly pinging Yamla, followed by pinging Yamla one more time even while attempting to apologize for it, leaves me of the opinion that unblocking you at this time will not be a net benefit to Wikipedia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:50, 16 October 2024 (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.