User talk:Shadowdeathss

Shadowdeathss, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Shadowdeathss! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

July 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Average human height by country, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Transcendence (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: account is obsessed with height and edit-warring; its history shows it was created for that specific purpose. Who the master is is not clear yet, but undoubtedly that will follow--even without such evidence (including CU evidence), it's clear that this is not an editor who wishes to thrive in a collaborative environment. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 21 November 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).

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

Request reason:

I firmly believe I have done nothing wrong. Yes, height is my one and only interest, which is why I created this account. I put in many credible sources, just for a certain user to remove them for no reason. Why should he remove my sources unfairly, and I cannot stop him? I provided solid evidence and explanation on why my sources should be allowed, yet he just ignores and goes with his bias, despite me and everyone else on the page disagreeing with him. Yet I am blocked, and accused of being a sock, which is outrageous. This is also my one and only account, thank you very much Shadowdeathss (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Leaving aside the likely socking, it's clear that you aren't interested in collaboration. Please read WP:NOTTHEM before making another request. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 22 November 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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason for me being a sock? Why am I getting accused for that? I'm offended that people think that way. As for collaboration, the other person was the one who didn't want to collaborate with me or other users on that page, just look through the history. I'm definitely willing to collaborate, what would you want me to do?

Decline reason:

Only one appeal at a time please.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 23 November 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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Alright. So I'm wrong for spam editing without explanation, and I will provide more explanation to other users in the future, and won't do it again. Please unblock me.

Accept reason:

Unblocked with concurrent topic ban on any article or article content related to height, broadly construed. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your unblock request. Some questions when you have a moment:

What is your association with User:Dazaif?
What is your understanding of collaborative editing on Wikipedia? Can you see why WP:NOTTHEM is relevant to your edit history? How will you avoid this issue if unblocked?

Not looking for an essay on the above, just a few sentences to give some idea that you understand the issue that led to the block. If you really want to continue editing it will need to be with a more collaborative approach; otherwise the block is likely to persist.

331dot I feel like I'm pinging you a lot today, sorry about that. Any views welcome on the answers to these questions if/when they arrive. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies is the blocking admin, not me. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry about that. Drmies, a ping for you. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This height obsession is really pathetic. But Euryalus, I don't see any evidence of socking and no connection with Dazaif (whom I just blocked...for socking...). Anyway, this user just doesn't get it: it wasn't "spamming without explanation" or whatever. I'll leave it up to you. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for viewing this.

1. I have no association with Dazaif, or anyone else. This is my one and only account.

2. Collaborative editting is not being engaged in an edit-war, which doesn't get anywhere. If I am in a disagreement with another user, I should let admins make the decision, and I should engage in diplomacy with the user I disagree with, rather than just changing what they changed back. I will also not talk about the wrongs of others in the context regarding my wrongs, which is relevant to NOTTHEM. In the future, I will exercise more caution regarding collaboration. I will also not revert more than once every 24 hours, if that is another rule I broke.

Shadowdeathss (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment yeah... in the future you'll just post another call to action in a sexist/racist reddit thread (Aznidentity), creating a WP:Meat, where you coordinate with other ethno-natiolists, like User:12b2s, to tag team and create a false consensus on a page. I was lucky enough to be warned, but who knows how many other articles you and your "friends" influenced. Belevalo (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is this, admins. Belevalo keeps going on random talk pages with other admins, falsely accussing me of being some socketmaster and making things up about what I said or what my intentions are. I assure you, I know nobody one wikipedia but myself, and the people on my side in that article are not my "friends", but simply happen to agree with me. In any case, could you please get Belevalo to stop his attacks on me please.

Shadowdeathss (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shadowdeathss. Thanks for your reply above. The issue holding up an unblock is that a large proportion of your edit history is edit-warring over heights, interspersed with minor vandalism. I don't presently have confidence that you won't resume this conduct if unblocked.

An unblock might work if it was accompanied by a topic ban on articles and content related to height. This would allow you to edit other areas of Wikipedia and build a body of good contributions which might later lead to that topic ban being lifted. Let me know if this is something you would agree to. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree to that, thank you.

Shadowdeathss (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in the spirit of WP:AGF I've unblocked your account but you are topic-banned from any article or article content associated with height. This topic-ban is broadly construed, meaning if in doubt about a borderline edit you'd like to make, it will be best to simply not do it. As with all topic bans it also applies to talkpages, WikiProjects etc. From the discussion above there isn't a lot of support for this unblock, so be aware that further disruptive editing will get your account reblocked fairly fast. And after all those grim messages, happy editing in non-height related pages. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]