User talk:RandomWikiUsername666

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}. Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2021 (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).

RandomWikiUsername666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My primary reason is that there is no reason for me to be blocked. I made constructive edits that added information and helped to reflect the two differing, valid definitions. These different definitions are shared and seen across Wikipedia; for example, decades are defined as ending in 00 whereas centuries are defined as ending in 01. The debate is well known and not settled, however, common practice is to use 00 and this should be acknowledged on this website in the name of clarity, fairness and accessibility. Acknowledging BOTH points of view helps to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality, one of it's main pillars, which presumably needs to be respected. Further, I was blocked without any discussion or debate which contradicts the third pillar.

Decline reason:

You were editing against established consensus and against the specific warnings on the article page. You haven't convinced me you understand this and you haven't convinced me you'd act differently if unblocked. Yamla (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2021 (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).

RandomWikiUsername666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all you're wrong to call it an established consensus, as, clearly, the debate is not settled. If you need proof of this, there is ample evidence for me to provide, and is clearly demonstrated within this website alone (e.g. the page for Century discusses definitions, calling one "popular"). Second, I did not edit AGAINST anything, I ADDED information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomWikiUsername666 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2021 (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.

Being the blocking admin, I'm not going to decline the above unblock request. However, I would decline the unblock request if I wasn't the blocking admin. The governing, established consensus is at MOS:CENTURY. You were pointed to this consensus here in a message on your talk page, twice in edit summaries on the article in question [1][2]. MOS:CENTURY isn't in dispute. It is our manual of style. You can't circumvent it by attempting to force your preferred version of the article. If you wish to change it, then if you are unblocked you should start a discussion at WT:MOSDATE. I would also like to note that you have been engaging in edit warring at 20th century. If you want to be unblocked you're likely going to have to demonstrate that you acknowledge MOS:CENTURY is the accepted consensus at this time and that you will not be engaging in any further edit warring in an attempt to force your preferred version. Also, simply because you are adding information doesn't mean you aren't editing against consensus here. If you want to be an editor here, you're going to need to learn to work with people here and not fight against them. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2021 (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).

RandomWikiUsername666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not disputing that it isn't a valid description of what a century or decade is. So please acknowledge that. Second, acknowledge that it there isn't an established consensus on how to define when these dates start/end. You know this is the case because Wikipedia itself is inconsistent on how it defines them, as I have explained

Decline reason:

not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:26, 9 October 2021 (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.

Also; I've just noticed you attempted to forge your signature as User:Yamla with this edit. Please see WP:SIGFORGE and, if you are unblocked, NEVER do this again. Second, please sign your posts. You can do so by placing "~~~~" at the end of your comments. And one more point; you reinstated your comments at User talk:FDW777 with this edit. Editors here are free to remove most comments from their talk pages at their discretion. See WP:UP#CMT. FDW777 was well within guidelines in removing your comments without responding to them. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Babe, chill. I'm not attempting to forge someone's signature, I was just trying to include their Wikipedia name so they'd see the message. This is Wikipedia, I'm not stealing their credit card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomWikiUsername666 (talk • contribs)

I'm not your babe. This is formatted as a signature. If you don't understand that, you need to carefully read and understand Wikipedia:Signatures. If you're attempting to make it so that Yamla would see the message, that's called a "ping", and there's a helpful page at Help:Notifications which discusses how they are used. Your attempt at a ping failed because pings must be associated with a valid signature. I asked you above to please sign your posts. You're still not signing them. So, no ping you attempt will ever work until you start signing your posts as I directed you to do above. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the unblock request reviewing admin (for the now declined unblock request); as I noted above, I wouldn't decline the unblock request as I am the blocking admin. But, once again I would recommend against unblocking. This editor refuses to recognize the existing consensus at MOS:CENTURY, nor have they addressed the issue of their edit warring. On a more minor point, they are continuing to refuse to sign their posts. At this point, the editor does not appear to be willing to work with the community, but rather against it. I believe RandomWikiUsername666 must answer these two questions in the affirmative before an unblock request should be granted; (1) Do they acknowledge MOS:CENTURY as the governing consensus with regards to incorrect edits such as this, and (2) Do they commit to never edit warring again? To date, none of their three unblock requests have addressed these serious concerns. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomWikiUsername666; you've now had three unblock requests denied. I strongly encourage you to reconsider your actions if you want to be unblocked. You are not addressing the serious issues surrounding your block and you are not attempting to show how you intend to work within community norms. I've laid this out in comments above. If all you are intent on doing with your unblock requests is to continue to wage your argument about how Wikipedia is wrong and you are right, I think it highly likely your next unblock request will be your last as your ability to edit this user talk page will likely be revoked for misusing your talk page while blocked. It's your choice. I hope you choose well. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]