User talk:Picklespitlizyr

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Picklespitlizyr, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains^(talk) 22:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Templates, Images, & Conduct on Wikipedia

Picklespiltizyr, There are number of disruptive edit behaviors you are engaging in:

Images are not added to templates "just to look nice". They have to have to be relevant, descriptive, and representative of the topic at hand. The flag of a Spanish colonial flag and one church in Santo Domingo is NOT representative of Hispanic architecture across the world.
Similarly, captions to images must be descriptive and have a point. They are not opportunities for poetic phrasing.
Templates are meant to placed ONLY on pages DIRECTLY relevant to their subject matter. You cannot add the Spanish Colonial architecture template to cities as a whole, that is not its purpose. It is meant for articles on architecture, including architectural styles, building articles, or other directly relevant subjects.

I see that you are a new editor, so I won't hold your disruptive edits against you. Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Images. Failure to follow Wikipedia guidelines, such as reverting edits without cause or inappropriate removal of content, will result in my opening an arbitration case against you and possible a motion to block. If you need any help, please reach out to my talk page. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note

You may find this to be of your interest: [1]. My regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this "odd" edit, read this carefully: WP:WIKIHOUNDING, because this is the last time I am going to warn you.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to List of World Heritage Sites in Mexico you included material from a webpages that are available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 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 ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 29 May 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).

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

Request reason:

please someone unblock this account, this user is chasing me since is obsessed with another very-arbritrary and sysop-granted-gainful action. Please someone check the block summary. Picklespitlizyr (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This severe-corrupt sysop doesn't reads edit summaries; in the Mexican desert canyon article that ip-added templates says about "lack of references" between in large references list in a non Wikipedia style way and in the book-list-referenced sections, now this user justify strangely the block with "references removal" (let it be called one). --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:25, 29 May 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.

Which user is chasing you? Also, its pretty hard for a "severe-corrupt sysop" to read edit summaries when you don't provide any. Of your last 50 edits, a mere 10 had summaries. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 29 May 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).

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

Request reason:

Please, I'm being chased by two corrupt sysops, @CaptainEek:, [2], enough? Picklespitlizyr (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Take this approach again and you'll lose access to your talk page. WP:NPA, please. WP:GAB explains how to craft an acceptable unblock request; this is nowhere close to acceptable. Yamla (talk) 18:45, 29 May 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'm not sure what the edits you've linked are supposed to show? The first shows you removing valid templates, and not replacing them with a reference. The second shows you just changing some images. I'm not seeing admin corruption. You were editing disruptively, by removing valid content and sources. Thus, you were given a short block to stop your disruption. If you understand why your edits were disruptive, explain and you will be unblocked. But claiming admin abuse is not gonna get you very far. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to Copper Canyon are still not a net improvement. Please explain what you're trying to do—and especially why you're removing maintenance tags without fixing the problems they identify. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please focus on the article itself. This talk page message could easily be interpreted as a personal attack. —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... personal attack? --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the one you left at my user talk page. This matter has now been referred to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

permalink to ANI thread. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Your recent editing history at Denmark 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. creffett (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 ~~~~}}.

Personal attacks based on an editor's nationality are unacceptable. You cannot edit war. You cannot repeatedly remove sourced content and legitimate maintenance tags without gaining consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Templates, Images, & Conduct on Wikipedia

Note

Copying licensed material requires attribution

May 2020

June 2020

June 2020

"Mexiquense"