User talk:RomanHannibal

Welcome!

Hi RomanHannibal! I noticed your contributions to United Nations Command Military Armistice Commission 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

Happy editing! NasssaNser_talk 00:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in WTIC-TV, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Per the Manual of Style, linking countries is usually considered to be overlinking. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get well-known countries like the United States shouldn’t be linked. But relatively unknown countries (e.g. Chad) should. Where do you draw the line, especially because the English Wikipedia is read globally? RomanHannibal (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline isn’t well-applied. For example, in List of countries and dependencies by area, every country has a link, even the United States. RomanHannibal (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas E. Peck, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages First Presbyterian Church, Union Theological Seminary and Central Presbyterian Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

At Talk:State of Palestine, you are engaging in disruptive behavior, WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON, against consensus and I would politely suggest that you desist. Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is you, not me, who is guilty of the behaviours stated above. Stop it. RomanHannibal (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged consensus above holds no water because it seemingly can’t even be defended against my challenges to it. It definitely should be overturned to my version, which I successfully and extensively defended. RomanHannibal (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

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).

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

Request reason:

First, I would to admit I am guilty of sock puppetry. Add User:ColdFairy and User:WarmFairy to the list of my socks.

Despite my behaviour, I believe this is a special case in WP:NOPUNISH and WP:IAR. I gained 500 edits without gaming and there were no new problems on my new account. I created June 2023 Jenin incursion and significantly expanded 2023 Eli shooting.

Furthermore, FortUser was blocked because of violation of WP:ARBPIA4’s 30/500 restriction and WP:PGAME. Blocks are preventative (see WP:PREVENT). However, this account has the tenure mandated by the rules for 30/500 and cannot violate the rules that FortUser (and ColdFairy and WarriorPlage) violated again. Which negative behaviour does this block prevent then?

For more prospectives on this matter see:

I hope you understand this is a special case and decide to unblock me. After an unblock, I will disclose my previous accounts in my user space in order not to avoid scrutiny.

RomanHannibal (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You must request unblock from your original account. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:26, 30 June 2023 (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.

RomanHannibal (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure I am not misusing their essays, I would like to ping @Tamzin and @Ritchie333. RomanHannibal (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry is against the rules, even if this was unblocked you are still engaging WP:BLOCKEVASION and that is why you will be blocked again. As you were told you need to appeal the original accounts block. Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]