User talk:Kristijh

July 2019

Your recent editing history at Video game shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Schazjmd (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it has been compromised. If your account is locked, please contact ca

wikimedia.org. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section), then add this below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}}.Sasquatch t|c 20:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Can you give me another chance Kristijh (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Accounts that are compromised are not eligible for unblock consideration. If you are the original operator of this account, please follow the instructions in the block notice or at WP:COMPROMISED to be able to resume editing. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2019 (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.

Request unblocking

he request was declined.

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).

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

Request reason:

Why was I warned only once before being blocked? - There is really no solution to be unblocked if not how can I make another account? Kristijh (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry but I cannot unblock you. We have no idea if the account is now controlled by the original account holder or the person who did this five times, or if they are the same person. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2019 (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.

I assure you 100% that I made those changes and my account is not compromised.

Well in that, case, I cannot unblock you because-- vandalism. Oh, wait. I know it was you unless it was your cat or some other nefarious force. The question is original holder/not original holder. Which is moot. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Movin' on now. But my Parthian shot is this-- those edits were out of character with prior edits, so my belief-o-meter is buried at "0". Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

compormised

@331dot: Can't remember where we go from here as account creation is (obviously) blocked as well. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best I could find.

from Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Compromised accounts
If you state in your request that the edits that led to your block were made by someone else who accessed your account, we will have to leave it blocked. You may have changed the password, but unless they've met you at a meetup or otherwise know you personally, administrators have no way of knowing that you are indeed back in control of your account. (And even if you meet someone in person, without seeing some strong evidence like a passport, how can you prove they are who they claim to be?)
For this reason, if your account is blocked as compromised, do not make unblock requests unless you can demonstrate that you have regained control of your account. Instead:

Create a new account and make sure to choose a strong password. If an autoblock prevents you from doing that, use a computer in a different location (that is, with a different IP address).

With your first edits, clearly identify the new account as a successor account of the blocked account, for example by adding the code {{User previous account|1=Old Username}} to the user page of the new account (replace "Old Username" with the username of the blocked account). If you do not do this, your new account may be blocked as an abuse of multiple accounts.

Follow the advice in Wikipedia:Personal security practices to prevent your new account from becoming compromised again.
If you create a new account while you are blocked not only because your old account is compromised, but also for other reasons, your new account will likely also be blocked to prevent you from evading the block of your old account. In this case, you will need to request to be unblocked with your new account and address the other reasons for which your old account was blocked.

Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried on another computer and on my phone and it does not work. Kristijh (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim I'm not sure either, maybe send them to WP:ACC? 331dot (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kristijh, I have received two requests on other wikis to unblock this account. I am not going to unblock. Please don't ask me any more. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:55, 17 July 2019 (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 is my last request for unblocking for 2019

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).

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

Request reason:

I want to continue adding articles from Romania to Index of Romania-related articles - My contribution on https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Index_of_Romania-related_articles&action=history

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2019 (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.

Question

Expiration time of indefinite means that this account and my ip is blocked forever?
How many times can I request unblocking? Kristijh (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Indefinite" means "until you convince an admin to unblock this account". And you can request unblocking until you exhaust admins' patience, which is likely "one more time unless you start addressing the block reason". Huon (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No. An expiration time of indefinite means the account is blocked indefinitely. As your unblock requests are getting nowhere and as your last three unblock requests were clearly pointless, I have revoked your access to this talk page. So you've already made your last unblock request here on this talk page. --Yamla (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Camel 101 games has been nominated for discussion

Category:Camel 101 games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tablet computers introduced by century

A tag has been placed on Category:Tablet computers introduced by century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #27246 was submitted on Oct 21, 2019 18:24:28. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2015 Najran shelling for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Najran shelling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Najran shelling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SharabSalam (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of mass murders for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of mass murders is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mass murders until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Railway stations completed in the 19th century

A tag has been placed on Category:Railway stations completed in the 19th century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Railway stations completed in the 21st century

A tag has been placed on Category:Railway stations completed in the 21st century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of 20th-century explosions

Hello, Kristijh. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of 20th-century explosions".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Educational institutions by century

A tag has been placed on Category:Educational institutions by century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Taunsa Sharif bombing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taunsa Sharif bombing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taunsa Sharif bombing until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lists of terrorist incidents in 2011

A tag has been placed on Category:Lists of terrorist incidents in 2011 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 08:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Galaxies discovered in 1866

A tag has been placed on Category:Galaxies discovered in 1866 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Astray (video game)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Astray (video game). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Astray (video game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Timeline of the War in Iraq (2013–2017) has been nominated for renaming

Category:Timeline of the War in Iraq (2013–2017) has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tablet computers introduced by century

A tag has been placed on Category:Tablet computers introduced by century indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 9 § Building collapses

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 9 § Building collapses on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. + Qwerfjkl talk 21:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of June 2015 Monguno bombing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article June 2015 Monguno bombing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2015 Monguno bombing until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]