User talk:Albwiki001

April 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Edi Rama has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Edi Rama was changed by Albwiki001 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.897078 on 2018-04-04T14:18:48+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

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 ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2022 (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).

Albwiki001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not sure why I was blocked indefinitely, but kindly ask an admin to review my recent edits and decide for herself if such a permanent ban is warranted. I am thinking maybe this is a mistake, and I can get my editing privileges again. Albwiki001 (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is your third block in as many weeks for edit warring on the same article. The first two don't seem to have impressed you. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 06:53, 29 September 2022 (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.

Albwiki001 (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2022 (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).

Albwiki001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I should be unblocked because the two users I was initially involved with in an edit war eventually agreed my most recent edits were appropriate as can be evidenced in the talk page linked below: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Sali_Berisha. Since my edits were eventually agreed upon, I kindly ask the blocking is removed. Albwiki001 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What you seem to be saying is that because you were correct with your edits, your edit warring should be tolerated; every edit warrior thinks that their edits are correct, so that is not a defense. Additionally, there are other concerns with your behavior besides edit warring. Your making fun of other people's English abilities is concerning; this is a global website with people from all over the world, many of whom do not have English as their first language. You will need to be a little more accomodating. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2022 (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.

UTRS appeal #64336

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra - What do I need to do to be unblocked? Albwiki001 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes are inevitable. There are specific processes to undertake instead of edit warring to achieve consensus. You must describe those processes, which I spoon-fed to you before, without anyone just handing you the answers to parrot back to us. Bludgeoning other users into accepting your version is not a part of this process. The answers are in the relevant rules on content disputes. Please familiarize yourself with these rules. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra- Thanks for your response. I have familiarized myself over the past few months and think am ready to gain my privileges back. Is there a way you can help? Albwiki001 (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may make another unblock request for someone else to review, in which you demonstrate your knowledge/understanding. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have an open ticket at UTRS-- UTRS appeal #68671. You must convince @Yamla: that your understanding is sufficient and that you will avail yourself of this knowledge. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yamla - It's a new year and it's a new me. Could you please unblock me? I can confirm I've carefully read the guidelines around resolving disputes and will not engage in edit warring again. I've made a lot of very high quality edits, as you're probably able to see in my history, so could be a valuable asset for the community. Albwiki001 (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does not answer the question posed in UTRS appeal #68671. --Yamla (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla - What's the question? I lost my appeal key so cannot check? Could you post the question here and I'll try and answer? Albwiki001 (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep on bringing up that other users "eventually agreed my edits were suitable". You have already been told this is not relevant. It concerns me deeply that you don't seem to have grasped the point here. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla - I guarantee you I have grasped the point. Feel free to push back if you disagree, but think if they agree my edits were suitable, it's the same as them saying they shouldn't have reverted my edits and participated in edit warring. Yes, I did participate as well but that's because I was absolutely certain my edits enhanced the BLPs.

So I keep bringing it up to strengthen my earlier point that I bring a lot of value to the community, with my impeccable writing. Very crisp. Albwiki001 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This makes us think you believe it is appropriate to engage in edit warring provided your edits are correct. This is categorically not true and substantially weakens your appeal. --Yamla (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla - Well could you explain why none of the other editors editwarring with me got blocked? Not even temporarily, come on...

Truth is last year Wikipedia admins allowed a selective clean up of Edi Rama's page (a neoliberal politician, Albania's current prime minister) that removed well-written content sourced from unbiased media outlets while allowing unsourced conspiracy theories on Sali Berisha's page (a conservative politician), which I tried to remove and got blocked indefinitely for that. (Feel free to review the History pages of each and hold me accountable to what I said)

If you think Wikipedia should have a liberal bias, and it's OK if BLPs of conservative politicians include unsourced conspiracy theories while those of liberal politicians are carefully curated, please Deny my appeal. This is not a community I want to be a part of.

If you think Wikipedia should uphold the truth and be the most reliable source of knowledge and information, feel free to review every single edit that I've made and hold me to that standard before making a decision. Albwiki001 (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have no appeal outstanding at this time. Statements like the above actively hurt your case, though. I strongly urge you to reread WP:GAB before making a new appeal. --Yamla (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not too much trouble, could you provide a status update on UTRS appeal #68671? I wasn't able to save my Appeal Key, so I don't have it. Also, curious to get your thoughts on what exactly of what I wrote hurts my case? Albwiki001 (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #68671 expired because you indicated you'd be unable to respond to it. You are free to make your unblock request here. WP:EW and WP:GAB provides the answers you seek, I have nothing to add to those. --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide more detail? I don't recall indicating I'm unable to respond, but could be wrong. Albwiki001 (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated you lost your appeal key. That means you'd no longer be able to respond to the UTRS request. Really, you shouldn't have been using UTRS anyway. Your unblock request belongs here. --Yamla (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Above you said Well could you explain why none of the other editors editwarring with me got blocked? Not even temporarily, come on... As per WP:NOTTHEM you were blocked because of what you did, not others, you should only be talking about yourself when making an unblock request and not other editors. Mentioning others may increase the chance of your unblock request being declined. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 03:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Albwiki001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have learned a good lesson from last time. It's been more than a year since I was blocked. I did a lot of reflection and agree that some of my behavior may have made people question whether I am here to build an encyclopedia. I am kindly requesting that my block is lifted and I will help make Wikipedia a better community for everyone, one edit at a time. Albwiki001 (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

per request.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

Please describe what to do instead of edit warring. Please clearly and concisely describe what you did, what you would do, and what constructive edits you would make. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: Wanna take a chance on an unblock? It's been greater than one year. @Albwiki001: What will you do the next time you think you are right and get reverted? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to an unblock. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both @Deepfriedokra and @EvergreenFir for unblocking and sorry for the delayed communication. I was in the hospital for a few weeks so wasn't able to follow up on this one. I'm honestly Ok contributing however the community needs me to, and will not be edit warring with anyone. Will only make constructive edits. Albwiki001 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my pleasure -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]