User talk:Alibino

Welcome!

Hi OmegySock! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! –Kamil Ali 14:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Username reports

Hi OmegySock! I noticed your reports at WP:UAA. I'm not an administrator, but just wanted to note that the UAA guidelines specify that an account with zero edits should only be reported "in the instance of an egregious name violation" (i.e. flagrant hate speech). Otherwise, it's generally not advised to report new accounts that haven't edited yet, or to speculate whether users are vandals in non-obvious cases (see WP:VANDAL for WIkipedia's very specific definition of vandalism and WP:BITE for why we shouldn't be rushing to block new users when it might not be warranted). DanCherek (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would second this excellent advice by DanCherek. We admins that keep an eye on UAA have enough actual problematic usernames to deal with without reports of usernames that have't edited. There are many reasons someone might register a username and never use it, and if they never use it, it is not usually a problem requiring an immediate block, except as DanCherek notes in the most egregious cases. Thanks 331dot (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the above. Also see WP:AGF for a few of the username reports. We don't block users because we think they might be vandals based on the username. They get blocked for blatantly violating the username policy or for various forms of disruptive editing. Don't list usernames at WP:UAA when the user hasn't edited unless they are very blatant violations. Hog Farm _Talk 16:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Please heed this advice you are being given. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry... OmegySock (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound harsh, but please review the Username policy and the guidelines at WP:UAA before making further reports. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jewish principles of faith, you may be blocked from editing. TigerScientist Chat 17:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Matt Beaty: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You made another UAA report of a username that had not edited. Please review the information at WP:UAA and the username policy before you make further reports. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC) When you do not block my main be like... (no indef block plz)OmegySock (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The block is now a partial block from UAA only. Once you indicate you have reviewed and understand the reporting criteria, I will be willing to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

Thanks for all the barnstars, I appreciate them, but I prefer to keep my talk page clean. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish oh ok... OmegySock (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Why are you reverting this action alone, and not the merge I did with the other article? Did you review the talk page discussion that I linked to? 98.32.192.121 (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, do you feel that the content belongs at both articles, rather than moved to one article or the other? Or is this is case of "Anon did thing. Anon bad. Must revert."? I hope not, because I would rather discuss than just have you be reactionary. 98.32.192.121 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it said bad faith on recent changes that is why... Alibino (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are talking about. Will you allow me to redo my edit? 98.32.192.121 (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. NoahDavid771 (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

talk

Serols, check your talk page. Alibino (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy, as you did at User talk:Serols.

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 ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

appeal

Favonian I was trying to award Serols not harrass him... We stopped a vandal together... Alibino (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You dumped more than 3 MB of crap on his talk page. Combined with your previous demonstrations of inadequate judgement, I think Wikipedia is better off without you. Favonian (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian Sorry... Alibino (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian Maybe a 1 month block and not indef? I made hundreds of useful contribs. Alibino (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian Second chance??? Alibino (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian, I'm not an administrator and I may not know all the policies and guidelines around this, but this user seems like an immature child with good intentions. I would suggest a one-month block and after that some sort of indefinite talk-page ban. That's just my take on this - you're much more experienced when dealing with these types of things than me. NoahDavid771 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 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).

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

Request reason:

Meant to award not harass Alibino (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm not sure that's truthful. Regardless, you've been a net negative so far. Perhaps once you've had a few years to mature, you might be a constructive editor. I'm meaning no offence here. Wikipedia is confusing and difficult to understand, and isn't remotely a social network. In a few years, this may be much clearer to you and you will have an opportunity to demonstrate constructive editing on other projects. But for now, I'm afraid it's too soon to consider unblocking you. Yamla (talk) 18:36, 23 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I learned my lesson can I have a 1-3 month block... (also if you block my talk page make sure to block my other account that I never used "EpicOmegy") (this account was for public WiFi but they swapped places) Alibino (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

With your talk page access now revoked there is no reason to keep this request open. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 23 February 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.

good faith

Can I make a new acc to show that I have good faith? Alibino (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian Yamla

No. See WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK. That would most definitely show that you are operating in bad faith. --Yamla (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla oh... sorry I do have good faith tho... Alibino (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

block wifi alt

Yamla LuK3 Favonian Ohnoitsjamie, can you please block EpicOmegy which is my alt for public WiFi (autoblock disabled) (It used to be this account but I swapped them.) Alibino (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, LuK3, Favonian and Ohnoitsjamie, can you respond?? Alibino (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you are continuing to be disruptive here, I have revoked your talk page access. Come on, you didn't get a response in TEN MINUTES and you go pinging admins? Enough. --Yamla (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 why you should be 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 post of this notice.

Thanks for all you do

Peacetime policing of all disruptive influences has never been easy

Just some green to balance out all the people who be negative around your headspace 100.12.241.197 (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]