User talk:Baprow

Hello, Baprow and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page Nicolás Maduro, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

Can you explain why, after being so seemingly worried about "your changes from 6 months ago being changed now" at List of presidents of Italy, now using your (cover) revert to unilaterally change the colors for PSI and DS, that had been in place in the article for many years already? Yes, I use big words like "logic", "coherence" and "constructiveness" because you are showing to be lacking all of it. In a different article you pressed for your change because you said you did it some months ago without it being contested, but concurrently you show to have no problems at conducting such unjustified changes on well-established versions of articles on your own while keeping reverting anyone who dares to contest you at these. There is no coherency at your edits other than attempting to impose your seemingly preferred version of the timeline charts at any cost and above anyone else's opinions.

I'm sorry, but this is open disruptive editing, and either you revert your unjustified changes and stop this madness or I'll have no choice but to report you to any higher stance. Cheers. Impru20^talk 15:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for you to revert this and seek a consensus for such a change. Impru20^talk 16:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third warning: Still waiting for you to revert this under your own reasoning that established versions of the pages must prevail. There won't be a fourth warning. Impru20^talk 16:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no obligation to "respect" nothing but Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, to which you yourself are also bound. Please note that you are not the universal owner of timelines in Wikipedia, and you do not have any granted right to pressure others into accepting your versions. However, I do respect precedent and accept that yours may have been a version established for long enough in some cases, but that doesn't prevent anyone from being bold and change it if they feel it can be improved. You have been unilaterally changing well-established versions of timelimes throughout Wikipedia by those of your own volition, and it didn't come as an issue to you back at the time you did it. However, I won't keep a fight over such details that make no big difference overall, as it's rather your behaviour what poses the major issue here.

Nonetheless, thank you for at least reverting the unexplainable edit at List of presidents of Italy. Cheers. Impru20^talk 16:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maduro image

Please do not edit war at Nicolás Maduro. Please follow WP:BRD. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chávez

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hugo Chávez. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox images

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, you may be blocked from editing. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Impru20^talk 20:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Impru20^talk 19:08, 17 October 2020 (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. Thank you. Impru20^talk 11:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for wikihounding and edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:34, 18 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I think I can continue to contribute positively to this wikipedia, through dialogue and without falling into provocations. In case of conflict, I will explain my position. If my explanation is not accepted, I will propose alternatives that could satisfy both parts. If my alternatives are not accepted either, I will try to involve more people in the dialogue to reach an agreement. Baprow (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not enough here to convince me to lift the block. Yamla (talk) 11:14, 18 July 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.

The blocking administrator said "any admin is free to unblock if they are convinced Baprow 'gets it'". Could you be a little more verbose, though? As refreshing as it is to see someone who can be concise in their unblock request, it'd be helpful to see more of a response to the issues raised in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Wikihounding by Baprow. You don't have to go overboard – just add a couple more sentences that will reassure admins that you truly do "get it". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well. If you want more details, I will tell you, to sum up, that I have no intention of arguing. In case of conflict, I will explain my position. If my explanation is not accepted, I will propose alternatives that could satisfy both parts. If my alternatives are not accepted either, I will try to involve more people in the dialogue to reach an agreement. Those are my only intentions.--Baprow (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'd be disinclined to accept as is. The appeal (and followup) fails to take any responsibility for egregious edit warring, and some degree of wikihounding. While the edit warring certainly took two parties, it was not a case that in all the areas where Baprow acted poorly they were provoked. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the wikihounding looks like one of the reasons you were blocked, Baprow. If you agreed to a one-way interaction ban with Impru20 and a one revert restriction, I think that would help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have acknowledged responsibility in the fact that I lost my temper due to the total refusal of the other user to an agreement and I overdid the reversals. It is a defect that I have firmly proposed to correct because, in the end, the other user simply has to report my behavior and sit and wait for me to be considered guilty instead of trying to reach an agreement. It is not, therefore, a procedure that benefits me and that I am, as I have already said, totally ready to correct. When it comes to wikihounding, I deny it was harassment. I usually edit this type of thing and I did it not in order to harass anyone. Perhaps the time to start was not appropriate, with an ongoing discussion, and such a thing will not happen again. Neither edits that can be considered wikihounding nor repeated reverts. My only intention is to contribute as much as I can and avoid bilateral discussions that could lead to conflicts.--Baprow (talk) 09:28, 29 June 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).

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

Request reason:

In view of the fact that no reason has been provided to justify the denial of my request, I reiterate my request for unlocking. I have already said, and I repeat it, that I am not going to argue with anyone and I will not break any rules related to this. As requested, I have admitted responsibility in the part that concerns me, although I continue and will continue to defend that the other party also has its responsibility, which he denies. The latter does not detract from any validity of my assertions, which will be fulfilled as I have said. Baprow (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You say you have admitted responsibility but in fact you have said "When it comes to wikihounding, I deny it was harassment.". It was harassment and the fact that you don't recognize it as such makes me think that unblocking you would ultimately make me look foolish. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:13, 21 July 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.

Unlock

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).

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

Request reason:

It wasn't harassment because I wasn't following in the other editor's footsteps. I had planned to edit those articles anyway (you can look at my contributions to see that one of my main contributions is that field) and I have already said that it was not a good idea to do so while I was in another discussion. I have admitted that doing so was a product of nerves and, like the edition conflict, I have affirmed that it will not happen again. There are things that I want to contribute to this wikipedia and I am not willing to get in trouble or being get in trouble.
PD: And I can assure you that unlocking me won't make you look stupid. I take my word seriously. I do not consider that I deserve to be called a stalker, and I will not say that I am not even though it may be harmful to me. And I have promised to follow all the procedures because I intend to comply.

Baprow (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't feel that you should be unblocked unless you agree to the restrictions suggested by NinjaRobotPirate above. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 30 July 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).

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

Request reason:

@331dot: If you mean not interacting with the other user and not arguing with him, avoiding reversals, I have already said that I agree with that, but I have no problem repeating it: I acept it and I am committed to it. Baprow (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below. Please don't have more than one unblock request open at a time; it achieves no useful purpose, and means that the reviewing administrator has to close each of them instead of just one. JBW (talk) 20:55, 9 September 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.

Unlocked

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).

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

Request reason:

Well, another record. Twenty-six days without responding to my unlocking request. Congratulations.
I could say that the fact I have been two months enduring such a disrespectful situation (refusals without content, refusals based on technicalities or silence when I no longer give you any more excuses to continue denying me re-entry) without losing my nerves or using insults or bad words it is an evidence of my willingness to contribute and dialogue based on the rules, but seeing your reactions, it is most likely that you will come out with another technicality or being quiet as doors.
So you can forget to continue ignoring me, as I am going to forget about you and your shameful behavior.--Baprow (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The blocking administrator said Any admin is free to unblock if they are convinced Baprow "gets it". Each time you post here you give more evidence that you don't get it. You seem to honestly be unable to see that you have not accepted responsibility for the block; you seem to be honestly unable to see that the declines of your unblock requests have not been without reasons; I am willing to assume that you are honestly unable to see that the behaviour which led to the block included unambiguous hounding. Assuming all that is correct, since you can't see the nature what you have been doing, you will be unable to avoid doing the same again. However, if there were any doubt, your latest unblock request would have dispelled it. If you will post that in an unblock request, do we need any more evidence that you are likely to continue, as before, to be aggressive and belligerent in dealing with editors who do things you don't like? JBW (talk) 20:55, 9 September 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.