User talk:SoNotBietin

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

January 2023

Your recent Bold edit was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version. This concerns the Video game design article. Thank you. —Alalch E. 17:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SoNotBeitin (June 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Article wizard/Redirects. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SoNotBeitin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't know. SoNotBietin (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SoNotBietin! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message to SoNotBietin

Creating and submitting Draft:SoNotBeitin may have been by mistake. In this case, I have declined the draft and possibly require you tag it as with {{db|G7}}. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about the separate wizards for each thing: Pages, and Redirects. SoNotBietin (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Twitter. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You need to take your issue to Talk:Twitter and establish consensus. You are one edit away from violating WP:3RR, and further attempts at reverting may very well get you blocked. GSK (talk • edits) 15:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Twitter, you may be blocked from editing. You have been asked numerous times to open a discussion with the change you want to be made to Twitter and every single time, you have either ignored me, outright refused to, or chosen to engage in edit warring. Enough is enough. This is now being treated as disruptive editing as it has been made clear to you that you are going against established consensus, and you have made no attempts to work with myself or other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. GSK (talk • edits) 18:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not value accuracy? It's a minor edit I have made, and I did not want to start an edit war in the first place, nor did I plan to disrupt editing the Twitter page. SoNotBietin (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SoNotBietin reported by User:GSK (Result: ). Thank you. GSK (talk • edits) 15:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:17, 22 October 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to appeal my block as I believe I have not committed an act of vandalism. My intention was to add a Unicode stylization next to the "X" on the Twitter page to reflect the recent branding change. I did not foresee that this would lead to an edit war with users GSK and Masem.

I understand that Wikipedia values collaboration and accuracy, and I genuinely aimed to enhance the article. I never intended for my edit to escalate into a conflict. I appreciate the importance of following community guidelines and am willing to discuss this further to reach a consensus. Thank you for considering my appeal.SoNotBietin (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You aren't blocked for vandalism; you're blocked for edit warring. This isn't about the content of your edits, but rather your approach to editing. I see no indication you've used the article talk page to resolve this editing dispute. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:35, 22 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).

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

Request reason:

I acknowledge that I was blocked for edit warring; however, I want to clarify that I never intended to engage in an edit war. My goal was simply to add a minor detail to the Twitter page, which I believed would improve its accuracy. I understand the importance of collaboration and am willing to discuss this further to reach a consensus. Thank you for considering my request. SoNotBietin (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your second block for edit warring in 48 hours. Clearly, the first had no impact. Please sit this one out and then come back and edit without revert-warring. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 23 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 seems unfair. This user has been blocked for edit warring while trying to add a simple accurate addition to the Twitter page while the other involved users like Masem and GSK has been left unaffected. Apparently, GSK has reported this user to be committing acts of vandalism. This user tried adding a useful-for-some addition, not tried to hurt Wikipedia. User:Wikidude174 19:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a second account and attempting to make it look like someone else was deeply unwise. You will now need to answer for the confirmed socking as well in any future unblock requests. Izno (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was IP banned from creating a new account. SoNotBietin (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And anyway, even if I tried creating a new account on another device, it won't be allowed because Wikipedia blocks IP ranges, not just standalone IPs. SoNotBietin (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SoNotBietin. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]