User talk:SurferSquall

Welcome!

Hello, SurferSquall! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you 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 already excited about Wikipedia, 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 when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry 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 IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Geo-Sky moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Geo-Sky, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

would you be able to help me with some edits on that article? or send someone my way that can? SurferSquall (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on All Nippon Airways fleet

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page All Nippon Airways fleet, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Failure to follow WP:BRD

Regarding your split to the Qatar Airways, it has been disputed per WP:BRD. Discuss on talk page and gain consensus before making the split. Restoring the content without CONSENSUS is will enter edit warring territory. Discussion at Talk:Qatar Airways#Proposed Split. // Timothy :: talk  07:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Qatar Airways. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh? SurferSquall (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I never reverted anything more than once or twice SurferSquall (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Korean Air. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:All Nippon Airways, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Aerolíneas Argentinas, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. According to your user's talk page you have a recent history of conflicts across a number of articles. I strongly suggest you to listen to users that are more experienced that you, stop your disruptive editing and engage in discussions at talk pages. Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lake Country Regional Airport

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Lake Country Regional Airport requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Citadeol (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lake Country Regional Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asphalt. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

1885 Gorge Bridge train crash moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to 1885 Gorge Bridge train crash. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 1885 Gorge Bridge train crash

Hello SurferSquall,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 1885 Gorge Bridge train crash for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Wolfs Fang Runway, you may be blocked from editing. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be a redirect to another one. It's plenty notable enough. SurferSquall (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Wolfs Fang Runway. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What did I add that was unsourced/poorly sourced? SurferSquall (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Everything I removed and you subsequently restored. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That was added in 2020 by a different user. I simply un-blanked the page. SurferSquall (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

not too sure what you're talking about SurferSquall (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That information was added in 2020 by a different user- I didn't even have this account then. SurferSquall (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It does not matter. You are restoring unsourced information without providing inline citations to support said information, while egregiously and misleadingly flagging my removal as "vandalism". Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Your removal was indeed vandalism, and also, you first contacted me before I did that. So what was that about? SurferSquall (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to read edit summaries and, more importantly, assume good faith. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is one thing, having good faith apply is another. The White Desert article contains an unacceptable lack of information on the subject, I suggest expanding that before blanking and redirecting the article in question. SurferSquall (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That onus is on you, not on me. If you go out of your way to restore a poorly referenced article, you ought to provide adequate sources. You should never restore unsourced information without backing it up with adequate inline citations. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The article appears to be missing what may be the best citation for it, let me go ahead and add it. SurferSquall (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You added] exactly one inline citation verifying the lead sentence. Unless you provide inline citations for the information included under #Usage and maintenance, the information should and will be removed. Also, it should not require two warning messages to persuade you to add citations where they are missing. You should do that as soon as information is challenged. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

So an article shouldn't exist if the inline citations aren't flawless? Great SurferSquall (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It should not be restored unless it is adequately supported by inline citations. You'd have been free to restore the redirect to a proper article at any time had you rewritten it to conform with our verifiability policy, which you a) didn't do and b) started edit warring when unsourced info was justifiably challenged. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

At the very minimum remove the bad info then. Still needs to be its own article, as the one for White Desert has very little information at all SurferSquall (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you kidding? That's precisely what I did in the first place. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

My bad. Guess this whole discussion was pointless. Have a nice day SurferSquall (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Not quite pointless because it (hopefully) informed you about our sourcing policy, which I trust you'll put into practice in your future editing. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed I will. Might I suggest you don't open a discussion with a threat of an edit ban, that was pretty crazy to see out of nowhere SurferSquall (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue it wasn't "out of nowhere" since you had already received a level-2 warning to that effect. Each subsequent violation of WP:V inevitably results in level-3 and level-4 warnings; it's standard procedure. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Interstatefive. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Minor-attracted person. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. interstatefive  17:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Asiana Airlines. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

AMAC Aerospace moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to AMAC Aerospace. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because mostly not independently sourced. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 02:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: This article features only information that is obviously verifiable from the sources listed- also, there are two independent sources listed. I fail to see the issue. Please elaborate? SurferSquall (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"Mostly not independently sourced". If the majority of sources (three out of five) are non-independent, the article is far from ready for mainspace. Wikipedia articles should base their information overwhelmingly on independent secondary coverage, not on what the subject says about itself. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I can find more sources for information I have not yet added- but I cannot seem to find any more verification for what is there already. If I add the additional information (along with sources) would it make it ok? SurferSquall (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That's for AfC reviewers to decide. You can edit the draft and submit it for review once you've improved it, as I dream of horses laid out above. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will SurferSquall (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

I strongly recommend you spend some time improving existing articles, rather than creating new ones. This is where you are running into issues. Creating new articles is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia, and if you gain experience expanding and referencing existing ones first you will learn the skills needed to create new articles successfully and understand what sort of references are needed to show a subject is notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Aviation Capital Group moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Aviation Capital Group, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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.

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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in UPS Airlines. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. No sources were provided for new title, and the current title was affirmed in an RM, so an RM is needed to move again except in obvious cases, which this is not. Also, you did not even attempt to update article links with the new name, and links in navboxes, as recommended by WP:RM. BilCat (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

How do I provide a source for the move? This Wikipedia articles seems to be the only material referring to it as “UPS Airlines”. SurferSquall (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_26. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Vaguely worded insulting comment about closes by an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Air Zaïre 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Ahunt (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You cannot remove a source based on personal opinion. SurferSquall (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Braathens

Hi @SurferSquall, I see you’ve removed the unsupported content tag on the Braathens list of destinations. This was placed there because the dates in the list are unsupported by the references cited, because the references have a publication date years before the events they are supposed to support occurred. It is simply not possible that end-date of 2002 for the flight to Stansted is supported by a reference published in 1998. Similarly, it is not possible that the flights to Umea that began in 1997 and ended in 1999 are supported by a reference published in 1996. There are a number of claims like this made throughout the list, leaving it lacking support in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Asiana Airlines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The separate fleet page has existed for months, KorFlyer88 was persistently removing the link to it. Consensus on separate fleet pages for airlines with large fleets was reached months ago, featuring a separate fleet page is nothing new! SurferSquall (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're blocked for edit warring. You'll need to address that and that only. Justified edit warring is still edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

SurferSquall (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Your page has multiple warnings for edit warring, among other issues, so this is not exactly a bolt from the blue. There are only three generally accepted exceptions to WP:3RR, reverting naked vandalism, naked copyright violations and serious BLP violations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

What else do you suggest I have done instead? SurferSquall (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

If you having a content dispute, you take it to the talk page. If someone is editing in a manner that is clearly disruptive, but not vandalism, then you can issue warnings on their talk page If that still doesn't slow them down, then you can request admin intervention. See also WP:DR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, why in the world was I blocked and not the other user? SurferSquall (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

At the time I blocked you they had not edit warred past their warning. However, I see that since then they have. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I find it annoying primarily because, while this might sound obtuse, a link to the separate article IS needed; I really do not understand why they are so adamant to remove it and attempt to get me blocked SurferSquall (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Asiana fleet

@KorFlyer88: Care to explain your adamant removal of the link to the Asiana fleet page, despite that page having existed for several months? What’s the issue with it existing? Not really fair to accuse me of vandalism for adding such a link SurferSquall (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@SurferSquall @KoFlyer88 Warnings were issued, and you both ignored them. You have both now been blocked for 24hrs. This edit warring stops right now. When your respective blocks have expired you can either discuss this on the article talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS or move on to some other productive editing elsewhere. See also WP:DR. I do not want to have to address this subject again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It appears he had an administrator block me from editing the page permanently? Seriously? SurferSquall (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Negative. Mine is the only block currently in place. The responding admin was referring to my block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 Warning Do not Edit War. I am fully aware that the other party is doing so while logged out and have blocked them for a week. If they do so again, report it to an admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Or just drop me a line. They are dancing on the edge of an indefinite block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Indonesian Air Force

DO NOT engaged in an edit warring as done on List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force article. You are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to honor any consensus gained, as opposed to repeatedly undoing other users'. If they're certain changes you want to make, then do them individually, rather than reverting the entire article. If you engage in an edit war, you will be blocked again from editing. FOX 52 ^talk! 00:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I simply edited the article to reflect the talk page consensus. SurferSquall (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indonesian Air Force. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 01:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That's the thing- my edits were to bring it to the consensus reached on the talk page. SurferSquall (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Your talk page is getting cluttered with warnings for edit warring. You have already been blocked once for that. Tread carefully. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying I don't believe they're fair warnings. SurferSquall (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:3RR very carefully. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

So even if someone is removing properly sourced, typed and copyedited information over and over again I'm just supposed to let that happen? SurferSquall (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No. If somebody is editing disruptively, which includes edit warring, you can issue warnings and if they continue, you can request admin intervention. I really do not enjoy blocking people, especially when I believe they are trying to do the right thing. But edit warring is inherently disruptive. Once someone has been warned sufficiently you can report them to WP:3RRN or WP:ANI for most non-edit warring disruption. Instances of naked WP:VANDALISM can be reported to WP:AIV. Just be sure that it's actually malicious editing. And you can always drop a line to specific admins if you know they are online or it's not time sensisive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

If you don't stop your incessant edit warring, you are going to end up getting blocked indefinitely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, it is only reverting unsourced and unexplained removals/changes of content, i did nothing wrong SurferSquall (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is it that you only seem to care about this “edit warring” and not at all about the content issues themselves? seems it would be a better use of time to fix those SurferSquall (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not editing the article because I don't know much about the subject. I am an admin and part of my job is to stop disruptive editing. I have linked WP:3RR repeatedly. I left a note on the article talk page expressly warning that doing more than three reverts in a 24 hr period on the same page was edit warring and I listed the few exceptions. You were pinged. I don't know what else to do. You are starting to make me wonder if this may be a case of WP:IDHT or WP:CIR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t appreciate personal attacks. It’s a goddamn fleet table, full of numbers. Discussion gets nowhere. I was having a good time on Wikipedia until all of this and really you aren’t being helpful about it at all SurferSquall (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am only reverting the constant unexplained and unsourced changes to the article by Ckfasdf and EvoSwatch, both of whom insist on adding information from older sources or that is entirely unsupported by the sources listed. Multiple times they have sourced content to “sources” that do not at all support their changes, i have to revert this over and over and over and over and over as discussion with them does not get anywhere. (My request for rollback rights was completely ignored.) Page protection would do nothing, as both users are extended confirmed. It’s a waste of time for me to have to check this page every single day for the past (week?) now to undo these disruptive edits and to see myself blocked for that sucks, because isn’t all contentious content on this site supposed to be properly sourced? Yet i’m getting blocked for removing unsourced and unsupported information. Tell me how it even makes sense? SurferSquall (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As I said on your last block, You're blocked for edit warring. You'll need to address that and that only. Justified edit warring is still edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

As I stated before, actually multiple times, if someone is editing disruptively, you can issue warnings and request admin intervention at WP:ANI. Yes, that includes adding improperly sourced content. I intensely dislike blocking editors who are obviously not trying to be malicious. But you have a wall of warnings on your talk page about this and you just came off a 24 hr block. This wasn't a close call. Your wave of reverts was a flagrant 3RR violation. I am not going to decline your unblock request because I am the blocking admin. But IMO you don't get it, and until that changes I can't support your request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

A: there is no easily accessible page anywhere that contains instructions on these “warnings” (ive looked for it for months, maybe i’m just retarded) B: You warn only me and nobody else. Why not? C: What the hell would ANI do? Make some poor admin read through an argument between idiots over a bunch of fucking numbers in a fleet table, an argument that has lasted a WEEK? because two or three people seem to have completely lost understanding of (A: the English language and B:how to read)? What good would that do? Especially when 90% of the requests ive ever made on similar pages have gone completely ignored? I’m starting to sound like a broken record, and I honestly think the fact that you’d happily block me any chance you get for this “edit war” rule is pretty sad! Especially so because you keep claiming i am “well intentioned” (i am, and always have been) SurferSquall (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:TW. That is an excellent tool for all sorts of editing and easy to apply templates including warnings. I use it myself. You can also check out WP:WARN though I think Twinkle is much easier than manually copying and pasting the various templates. As for C, I haven't actually noticed them edit warring but I don't monitor the editing activities of specific users as a rule. I do however monitor some pages where there has been a history of problematic editing. ANI is not my favorite place, see my thoughts about that on my user page, but users who are editing disruptively are (usually) dealt with there. As for "dumb ass rules," you are free to disagree with them, but you are not free to ignore them. There are a number of guidelines that I'm not wild about as well. I either live with them or, in one case in particular, I avoid editing at all in a certain subject area because of a specific guideline that I emphatically disagree with. But again, to quote an old expression, themz the rules until they aint. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I don’t agree with the edit warring rule, but I do realize that it was unhelpful and there were better ways to go about it. I’ll cease to edit war on that page and deal with the issue somewhere/somehow else. All i’m here to do is add to pages and fix mistakes in pages, I haven’t ever meant to do anything bad. SurferSquall (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per your request and agreement to abide by community guidelines. Let's not go down this particular road again please. Happy editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You have been unblocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Please note that this user is involved in an ongoing edit warring at Asiana Airlines.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer I'm seeing two reverts here. That's not a 3RR vio, but it's dancing pretty close to the line. Ditto @Ckfasdf. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers

Please read WP:NC-SHIPS before making anymore ill-advised changes to the names of ship articles. Your changes are incorrect and have been reverted. Llammakey (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry SurferSquall (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

reversions

Maybe, just maybe, before you blindly revert changes in a link name, on a topic you clearly are uninformed about, you should read the page being linked to? - NiD.29 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Apologies if i messed something up SurferSquall (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

United BOS-LHR stats

The statistics are from 2021 to 2022 and United was flying that route as of that time and the service does not end until the end of October. Please wait until stats are updated to October 2023 that do not include United. Thanks. 97.82.30.107 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

rudeness and condescention.

"I suggest you read deeper into things like that" implies that I have not done my homework and that you, the superior being, wish to remind me of this in order to score noddy points. You evidently forgot that a user account at planespotters is a necessary prerequisite and that not all of us might care to open one. And you forgot to mind your manners. That you claim to be puzzled over this speaks volumes, and endorses my decision to stop trying to help you out. Feel free to delete this from your user talk page, as I am sure it is not what you want to hear - but you did ask, and the article talk page is the wrong venue for the answer. And no, I will not be watching here for a response. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The above presumably references this edit of yours. I have redacted it for you. This is the second time I have done so in the same discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Paul H. Cohen

Hello SurferSquall, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Paul H. Cohen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Spirit Airlines (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Spirit Airlines (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Gjs238 (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Supermarine Scimitar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farnborough.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Hey,

you changed the amount of A380 in service according to an "official Emirates company report". What is the exact reference? A verifiable reference must be stated per WP:PROVEIT. Additionally when adjusting the amount of aircraft in service, it's necessary to also adjust the total amount of aircraft in the bottom of the fleet table. WikiPate (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I see now, you got the 116 A380 from the Emirates annual report 2023. But the amount of 116 A380 are as of 31 March 2023, as the financial year of Emirates ended on that day. How do you know that in the 6 months between 31 March 2023 and today no A380 has been reactivated or retired? WikiPate (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I had that report as a citation next to the number, no idea who removed it. If you can find a more recent source that states something different, you’re welcome to change it. Company sources are often best for this, because, well, they’re the company. SurferSquall (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:AMAC Aerospace

Hello, SurferSquall. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:AMAC Aerospace, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Hi,

Do you have a source on the planned seat configuration for the Northwest 787? I wasn't able to find any myself. You can feel free to leave it in if you find a source but if you are unable, I must revert it; to quote WP:PROVEIT, "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material...".
-Thanks, TheTransitFanNY (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Obviously whoever added it got it from somewhere. I’m going to drop a cn tag on it and leave it at that, it’s not exactly harmful SurferSquall (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Although I'd like to find some source on it since they were never delivered in the first place. Maybe some kind of press release somewhere. If I find it, I'll put in in. TheTransitFanNY (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing it came from a forum over a decade ago, there's no finding that SurferSquall (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Singapore Airlines fleet. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed a grammar error in the last editor's edit, don't block me lol SurferSquall (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Singapore Airlines fleet

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Singapore Airlines fleet, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

15 October 2023

There is currently a discussion about your actions here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Sun Country Airlines destinations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Syracuse and Grand Rapids Airport.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

You have been blocked from editing for one week 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have repeatedly been editing disruptively against consensus by using a source that has been determined to be unreliable, even when you are well aware of the consensus. This is unacceptable behavior and it must end now. Cullen328 (talk)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here I have the right to attempt to get a flawed consensus changed. I made a serious attempt to do so, which was ignored. I have not used the supposedly unreliable source at all since it was brought to my attention again. I do not believe, per Wikipedia's own rules, that it's fair for me to be blocked, because I haven't used the source again, and my serious attempt to fix the issue went ignored.

Decline reason:

Making an effort to change a consensus does not automatically mean that it will be accepted. If it is not accepted, then you need to live with that even if you think it is wrong- and expect to be blocked as disruptive should you edit against consensus anyway. This request does not convince me that your problematic behavior will not resume, so I am declining it. I think you are lucky it was only a week. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Planespotters, for real

@ZLEA,@AndyTheGrump,@Canterbury Tail,@Steelpillow- I made a serious attempt to change the consensus, as ZLEA stated at ANI. The contents of my argument went ignored. I have nothing personal against any of you. However, your eagerness to block me over trying to change the consensus is weird- can I not try to change a flawed consensus? Steelpillow, my problem with your statements is this: teh various arguements made against Planespotters as a source are simply false, and easily proven so. I am not incompetent, but at risk of sounding like a dick, I am right. WP:PLANESPOTTERS also does fail WP:CON, this I am sure of. I am not attempting to flog any dead horses, I am only attempting to change a consensus that, though made in good faith, is flawed in several ways. I also have npot re-added Planespotters to any articles at all since it was brought to my attention again. Please, I mean nothing bad. I wish only to save a rather large, very useful source of information. Thank you. SurferSquall (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It is quite frustrating, and rather sad, to see this happen in the first place. The arguements made against Planespotters as a reliable source are false, yet when argued that way, I am shut down. Why? Is it easier to throw WP links at me than to consider the truth? SurferSquall (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of your talk page while blocked is to make a convincing unblock request. It is not to continue the behavior that got you blocked. So, stop that behavior, or your talk page access will be revoked, the length of the block will be increased, and you will also increase the chance of an indefinite topic ban from aviation, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the block notification you wrote, this isn’t even what I was blocked for. You cannot change what the block is about after it has been given. I have not used Planespotters at all since it was brought to my attention again, and you act as though I have. How is it fair to give me a topic ban from aviation FOR TRYING TO CHANGE A CONSENSUS???? SurferSquall (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s rules allow me to make an argument to change a consensus. It is allowed. And others are supposed to…. read it at all in the first place. And consider what it says. And you have done neither of those two things. SurferSquall (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

SurferSquall, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. And as a consequence of this, it sometimes becomes necessary to accept that regardless of one's own opinion over something, if enough other people disagree, the decision is going to go their way. This happens to us all sometimes. It's happened to me quite a lot. I generally don't like it. I usually still think I'm right, and other people are wrong, and over questions much more fundamental than whether a particular website should be used as a source or not. All the same, in order to achieve anything at all here, and in order to avoid pissing off more of the people more of the time than I do already, I know that purely on a practical level, shutting the f*** up about something is often tactically advantageous. And occasionally worthwhile for gaining a bit of perspective over whether whatever it is that I'm currently seeing a red mist over is actually that important. Often it isn't. Occasionally it is. Either way though, boneheaded insistence that I'm right has never done much to win any arguments. It rarely does, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I guess, but allowing one of the aviation topics’ largest and most detailed sources go to waste is figuratively and literally an injustice SurferSquall (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

In this case it is important. A series of majorly flawed arguments has snowballed into the most flawed “consensus” I’ve run into over something, more so than a lot of serious real-life problems. It’s baffling that so many will willfully ignore the fact that their arguments are easily proven false. The companies’ own proprietor offered to do so. And it’s an injustice to Wikipedia in the sense that it’s the largest and most detailed source available anywhere for the information it contains. Deprecating it will only serve to further lower the quality of Wikipedia’s already depreciating aviation articles. It’s sad, above all else. Sad. SurferSquall (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I blocked you for disruptive editing in general, and I stand by that block. You used that source after knowing that consensus was that it does not meet Wikipedia’s specific definition of a reliable source. Instead, you chose to complain ad nauseum, wasting the precious volunteer time of other editors. Many sources that are useful and interesting in other contexts are not acceptable as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Blogs by amateur scholars, for example, are frequently fascinating and often quite informative, and may well contain clues or even citations to actually reliable sources. Even so, these blogs are not acceptable as references on Wikipedia. You have been tendentious for quite a while on this issue. You really ought to take the excellent advice at Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, but I suspect you won't, though I hope you do. Don't worry. Wikipedia's coverage of aviation topics will be just fine without you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am well permitted by Wikipedia’s own rules to state the fact that it is a reliable source. As I’ve said numerous times the consensus, no matter how many people agree with it, is false; STILL none of you will prove it is an unreliable source, and all of my arguments for it STILL went ignored. And, no, I’m not sure the aviation topic will be fine- well over a hundred articles cite Planespotters, the majority of them several times. SurferSquall (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that it is reliable, or an evidence-backed argument that consesnsus is false? That would be a step in the right direction. Otherwise, you're just making people more annoyed. Right now, your argument that Planespotters should be used does not have any rationale, and the onus is on you to provide evidence to change the consensus. You can complain all you want, but nothing will change until you can show it should be changed. If you continue with the "Planespotters is reliable, and consensus is false" behavior, I sense an indef coming your way. For five more minutes...^{it's just a single vice} 22:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@SurferSquall: The block is not about planespotters.net, it is about your disruptive behaviour. I'd seriously recommend a voluntary topic ban (including right here!), it's something I have imposed on myself on the odd occasion and it worked well for me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

And yet you still will not specify how exactly advocating for a perfectly good source is “disruptive behavior”. SurferSquall (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course we all have, endlessly in spades. You just refuse to accept our arguments. That is your problem. But when you refuse to shut up and move on, that is our problem. So an admin shut you up for a bit in the hope that you would learn your lesson and move on. Do you want to be permanently sanctioned now? No? Then shut up and move on! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Neither you nor any admin have the right to “shut me up” over advocating for a perfectly usable source. If I cannot do this than a perfectly fine enough source will go to waste. I am far past broken-record here but you don’t have to be rude, over this, it doesn’t make sense why you are in the first place. And of course you’ll have some insult to respond to this in your unreasonable hotheadedness but I hardly can give a flying fuck anymore when my hundreds of hours of payless effort for this website lead to this hellish form of thanks. SurferSquall (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Note that this sockpuppetry was confirmed by technical evidence (CheckUser) at ANI. Further, your attempt to evade scruitiny by having the redirects deleted after your global renaming have been restored. Daniel (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

PLEASE READ IN FULL When my one-week block was reviewed, 331dot stated I edited against consensus- which did not occur. In a bit of anger I created a few other accounts, which I shouldn't have- and none of those accounts have ever been blocked for anything other than the sockpuppetry from me. I have begun several pages that are now deleted, my work gone- I'd like to finish them as a valid (and hopefully valuable) contribution to this website. I am sorry. Yes I wanted to get others to see my point- but I realize the points I tried to make must be flawed if they were this hated. I am truly done messing around/being disruptive, and I'd like to come back in good enough standing as I can. I'll take any topic ban/sanctions as may be necessary (with the hope they're not permanent). My other accounts can all stay blocked- or I can declare them properly on both my userpages and to ArbCom. As a point of contention, I do have fairly bad ADHD which annoys me a bit when I see things that need fixing that I cannot fix- WP:SO requires a wait of six months which is not something I am physically able to do. Thank you. I'm sorry, and I mean it. I can discuss whatever is necessary with whoever wishes to. SurferSquall (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, I am are unable to unblock you at this time. I recommend waiting at least six months before you again request unblocking. (You should not evade your block by editing the English language Wikipedia from a different account or while not logged in during this time. It would reset the six month timer.) It would work in your favor for you to constructively edit a different Wikipedia or Wikimedia project during this time, for at least six months and at least 500 edits. You will then need to concisely and clearly tell how your editing merited a block, what you would do different, and what constructive edits you would make. A list of Wikimedia projects can be found at META:List_of_Wikipedias . Before again requesting unblocking, please read the Guide to Appealing Blocks. Please read and heed any other advice you have received in unblock declines or discussions. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 8:41 am, Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

It's pretty clear you'll be under a single account restriction. @Ferret: Is this adequate to unblock if a checkuser approves? Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Hold that thought. @SurferSquall: Looks like you need to explain in your own words WP:dispute resolution. I'm also not convinced you know what WP:reliable sources are. WP:RSN is the place to go to ask about the reliability of a source. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not realize how recently you were blocked for sock puppetry, and I see you are banned by the community. Think about the concerns I have raised, but I cannot see you being unblocked in less than six months. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Yes, this is a 3X Community Ban due to repeated checkuser blocks. The appeal will have to go to ANI. I strongly recommend they do a better effort for their next appeal in 6 months. -- ferret (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ferret I am happy to discuss this at ANI. My most recent block for sockpuppetry has made me realize what I'm doing is wrong; I understand I shouldn't have done it, and I won't do it again. Any checkuser is welcome to inspect me right now- I have no other accounts apart from the ones you guys have discovered. And I won't make more. The community ban exists because of my socks; I accept doing what I did was the wrong thing to do, and I shouldn't have made other accounts. SurferSquall (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ferret You can bring this to ANI now. I am truly finished screwing around, and I'd like you guys to understand that. SurferSquall (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I promise if you bring this to ANI now, literally a day after being 3X banned and caught, that it will be rejected. Your only option is to wait. -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It must go to ANI? Why so? SurferSquall (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

And why so long? SurferSquall (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It must go to ANI (or AN) because it is a WP:CBAN, per WP:3X]. As for why so long, consider reading WP:SO. If you are indeed unable to wait, then you may simply not be compatible with Wikipedia, which is also okay. After all, the world is vast, and there's plenty of good work in the world that needs doing and isn't Wikipedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I am plenty compatible with it- six months is just a long time, and it's annoying given the long list of edits I had saved to publish. As I said above- I'd be happy to take 0RR, topic bans, whatever, Wikipedia is a hobby of mine I don't want to lose. I'm asking for a bit of rope even though I don't deserve it. I'll follow any and all rules necessary. Six months is just a mind-bindingly long amount of time especially when I don't have much else to do. SurferSquall (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that six months is a long time, but I'm glad to hear that you feel you can wait it out in order to demonstrate your compatibility which is, after all, the purpose of the WP:SO. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck Indeed. @SurferSquall Now the earliest you may make a request is 24 July 2024, 6 months after your recent sockpuppet got blocked. Meanwhile, I recommend that you go edit on a different project before then. This will increase the chances you will be unblocked after 6 months, provided your edits on other projects are non-problematic. SG5536B (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know French, German, Spanish, Arabic, Ukrainian, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Thai. I'm not a photographer. I know nothing of programming and technical documentation. I have nothing else here to work on. SurferSquall (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck @SG5536B I notice both of you comment here, yet neither of you are admins. How do you even find this? SurferSquall (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, although it doesn't matter much, I have made many times the number of contributions either of you have. Really, how/why are you even here? SurferSquall (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

How did I find you? I have known you since last year as I have also been looking up to avaiation-related articles on Wikipedia and saw the username of your original account as well as your sockpuppets' in the edit histories of many of them. By the way, even if you don't know many of the languages, you can still make your contributions in the Simple English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata for the next 6 months (note that there are differences in some guidelines in these projects). SG5536B (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, admins are considered to be regular editors with extra tools. Note that in WP:ADMINH, the community appears above any special user permissions category. As for how I found this, I lurk at ANI, watchlist pages, and if there's a straightforward thing I can do to help (such as answering a direct question by using links to policy pages) I do so. My goal is to help other editors continue to contribute. In your case, that meant answering your questions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra My recent block caused me to realize the error in my ways. I understand I shouldn't have made any more accounts. It was a stupid thing to do. SurferSquall (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll take that under advisement. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have read WP:SO thoroughly. I understand six months is the typical wait time for that procedure. However, Wikipedia is and has been, since October 2022, my hobby, and how I have spent much of my free time- After having received the one-week block in October 2023 I made the dumb decision to, rather than accept my actions and wait a week, instead create several sockpuppets to continue editing. I fully understand that having done so broke several rules, and I shouldn't have done it. I will not do it again. The one-week block itself was received for disruptive editing; this will not happen again, and indeed has not happened since I received that block. If unblocked, I will:

• edit only constructively to pages concerning aviation, airports, geography, buildings, and history
• work through the orphaned articles backlog- I began to work through it on a sockpuppet before it was blocked
• use only reliable sources; I will not use any determined by consensus or otherwise to be unreliable
• accept WP:0RR for a period of time determined necessary
• deal with any conflicts in a proper manner as stated by Wikipedia's rules and policies, rather than starting/continuing arguments as I did in the past
• drop the stick concerning WP:PLANESPOTTERS; I realize there is no good in continuing to argue my points (which, it turns out, may be wrong entirely anyways)
• accept a one-account restriction (with the exception of User:Htamz who is actually, as I stated before, my younger brother; I/WE CAN PROVE THIS)
• anything else deemed necessary by an administrator/checkuser/otherwise.

Despite my prior negative actions, as of writing this, I fully understand what I did wrong, the rules I broke, and why I am banned. The actions I took which led to me being banned will not happen again. I have no other socks apart from the ones listed on my sockpuppet category page. I believe six months to be unnecessary, because from here on out I will break no more rules. If I am unblocked, I promise I will be a positive addition back into this project. I have much to contribute. Please allow me to. I have not broken any rules other than socking since October. Apart from socking, I've contributed a great deal to a wide range of articles, talk pages, lists and categories. I wish to continue doing so. SurferSquall (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC) SurferSquall (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:SO. Really. You're not doing yourself any favors now. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

SurferSquall (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Also, any checkuser can dig through anything they want behind my account(s). I have created no others, I don't edit logged out, and I have no access to others. SurferSquall (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I strongly urge you to reconsider and withdraw this request before it goes to ANI. The community is not going to give you "rope" less than a month after socking, particularly with your block log and talk page history. Chances are good that a request right now could get the response of not just "no", but "no, don't ask again for a year". I've seen it happen. Listen to Ferret. Edit on Simple or Commons or Wikidata for the six months and demonstrate that you can be a constructive member of an editing community. Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I want to demonstrate that- by contributing to this as I have done so much already. Yes, I used sockpuppets- to make legitimate helpful edits. SurferSquall (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I understand it's not what typically happens- and I don't really deserve it- but I want a second chance. Fresh start. Other things have changed in my life apart from Wikipedia which have made me a better person, and a better person I want to be. SurferSquall (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  And, to be honest, this year so far I have been constructive, in terms of my edits. I don't believe there's anything wrong with the actual edits I made on my socks. SurferSquall (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  2 days is not enough (your most recent sockpuppet was blocked on 24 January). You need to let all the issues you caused rest for 6 months because the Wikipedia community needs this amount of time away from you at this point, partly because you created more than 1 account to evade your blocks. I'm afraid we are unable to trust you on English Wikipedia until then. I understand you already admitted all your mistakes but I just can't support your 2nd request above now and I think your request will likely be declined at this time, simply because it's too soon. So, please be patient and edit in another project until at least 23 July 2024, like I said before. Not gonna keep replying. SG5536B (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  "The Wikipedia community needs this amount of time away from you" no, to be serious, it doesn't. I've admitted my mistakes; (which didn't affect "the Wikipedia community" as a whole) and I want to move on. Badly. The six-month wait time is solely because of my socks; which I have stated will not happen again. I am a human. I made stupid mistakes. But six months is too far. SurferSquall (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  To be serious, it does. To quote WP:SOCK, Misuse of multiple accounts is a serious breach of community trust. Simply put, but socking you have shown the community that we cannot trust you, nor take you at your word when you say "it won't happen again". That is the purpose of the 6-month WP:SO. It is how you can SHOW, rather than TELL the community that you are worthy of trust. By demanding action now, you're giving the impression that your impatience might extend to other areas, such as your proposed restrictions.

  But hey, ignore every editor who has told you it's too soon, if that's what you want. We're just telling you what's likely to happen. I'm worried that pressing forward and ignoring what others are telling you will cause you to lose access to your talk page, but ultimately it's your choice. If you don't want me to try to help any further, just say so and I'll back off.EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  But I will follow the restrictions. I will. I have no other way to say that. I can't prove that I will until they're actually in place and I can follow them. SurferSquall (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I may be asking for an enormous extension of trust that I don't deserve, but, and I can't state this any other way, it will be worth it. It will work out. I can promise that. SurferSquall (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm asking for a bit of good faith in me. SurferSquall (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  You still haven't explained what to do in a content dispute other than edit war. Or dealt with the WP:RS problem. Just sayin'.

  I think you used up all your WP:AGF already. Abusing multiple accounts does that. That's why recommend editing elsewhere w/o problems for six months. Looks like you've rejected a lot of commendable good advice and assistance. TBH, this does not argue in favor of unblocking you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  In a content dispute situation I will discuss it with the involved editor(s) and attempt to come to a consensus, rather than edit warring. I realize now that’s a much better way to deal with it anyways, because edit warring goes nowhere. As for reliable sources; I used multiple sources which were not reliable, as established by WP:RS and consensus from others. As I said- I will not do that again. I have not rejected the advice given- I’ve begun editing simplewiki. I will continue to do so, because it lacks an appalling amount of information. Despite me having used up my AGF, I’m asking for another inch of it. You know this already- but reblocks are cheap. I want a final chance to do the right thing. SurferSquall (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  And a note on WP:AGF- I’ve never deliberately tried to hurt Wikipedia. Yes my actions were harmful, but I’ve never had ill intent. SurferSquall (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Third note, about warring- I will voluntarily accept an indefinite WP:0RR SurferSquall (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal:

Since many have stated I am not trustworthy- please see my proposal. I have a long, long list of edits written out that I planned to make; I propose that I be allowed to make these edits; and in perhaps, say, 3 days or 1 week an administrator or other editor inspect them to verify I am making valid, helpful edits. I think this would be a good way of maybe proving that I am here to contribute in a good way. SurferSquall (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Counter proposal: Accept the challenge the SG5536B set forth. Edit the Simple English Wikipedia for six months. Despite the name, editing that wiki is anything but simple- you can't use jargon, idioms, or any technical phrases that someone learning English as a second language might not understand. Bring an article or ten to Good Article status or better, keep a page with all of your trophies and barnstars, and come back here in July and show us what we're missing by keeping you out of wiki.riteme.site. Show us that you can create content without conflict. If you can do that, I suspect that the community would be willing to consider another chance for you here. But before you do, you should also disclose any other accounts you or your brother may have here so those don't come back to haunt you when you ask to come back. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I said this above- I do not have any other accounts, and to my knowledge neither does my brother. I have never brought an article to good article status here in two years, I doubt i’d be able to in six months. I want to contribute to the things I am skilled at contributing to. Even the editor I argued with extensively in December left a message on my sock’s talk page acknowledging I was a great help in maintaining aviation articles. SurferSquall (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Note on simplewiki

Most of Simple English Wikipedia is broken far, far beyond what I know how to fix. It is maddening. Not to mention nobody edits it; articles which are featured here have not been touched for multiple years on simplewiki SurferSquall (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I can be of assistance. I just created a user script at Simple English Wikipedia that adds a link to your sandbox between the "Talk" and "My settings" links. The script is simple:User:ZLEA/SandboxLink, and you can install it by following the instructions on the page. I tested it and found no problems on the Vector 2010 skin, but feel free to let me know if you find any problems. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is there not a sandbox in the first place? SurferSquall (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that does work. Only in Vector 2010 it appears, though SurferSquall (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Much of the 'Special" pages on simplewiki appear to be broken- a lot don't update or update with the completely wrong contents. There are also countless missing templates, very few bots, and hardly any active editors SurferSquall (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I've continued this discussion here. - ZLEA _T\^C 08:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

???

three hundred something people have viewed this page in the last four days. hello mysterious lurkers! SurferSquall (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

If it helps, those are views, not unique visitors. You're probably several of them, and every "publish" counts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes, I know, but three hundred is still a lot. SurferSquall (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Something else

@Deepfriedokra, if it helps at all, my edits on my sockpuppets were constructive and added quite a bit of stuff to Wikipedia. Yes I created socks, but edited constructively and helpfully with those socks. SurferSquall (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The community disagrees with you. And a word of warning that the way you are going, and I'm sure a lot of other admins are thinking of this, you run a serious risk of having your talk page access removed. Your current continuous line of complaining is not being constructive. If you want to make a seriously considered unblock request you may do so, but if you keep the current pattern of talk page edits up I will remove your access to it and you will have to use the UTRS system to request an unblock. At this point your talk page should be used solely to make a well reasoned and considered unblock request and nothing else. Canterbury Tail talk 20:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I seriously am not trying to complain, I’m sorry if it sounds that way. I’ve done an unblock request, it’s four sections above and remains un-reviewed. I don’t see what about my talk page edits would make you remove my access to it- mind explaining please? SurferSquall (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I might add- I’ve done my best to say what I want to say in my unblock request- with all do respect, WP:SO does have an anecdote concerning blocked users which show good insight into the reason they were blocked. I believe I do have such good insight- I’d love to go over it with one of you admins if you like. Please, I really mean good, I’m not sure how else to say that. SurferSquall (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m not great at explaining myself, but if there is any way I can prove to you that I’m deserving of an unblock now, I’m happy to do so. SurferSquall (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

And please, don’t talk my talk page access away. It helps me personally to write down what I’m thinking, yes it sounds like a rant quite often but i just do have a lot to say. I can stop if need be, but I want to respond to people’s comments here. Please let me…. SurferSquall (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me be blunt. You pretty much have zero chance of being unblocked before the six months has passed since you were blocked. You've been told that by numerous editors, yet you are still attempting to get unblocked. Because of you are banned (not just blocked), a single admin isn't going to unblock you. Who do you think is going to weigh in on your unblock request? Here's a hint: the same editors who are telling you that it's way too soon. Continuing to use your talk page in any capacity isn't helping your case. I would suggest for you to go away, do something constructive on a different project, and then maybe... maybe come back in six months and ask again. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

And to add, I would also suggest for you to not respond to this. Don't ask more questions. Don't plead. Don't conjole. Don't complain. Just leave it as is and listen to everyone else's advice. Otherise, you're just digging your hole deeper. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

With all do respect, WP:DIG means quite the opposite of what you think it means. Please see the second entry this page. SurferSquall (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right. I meant Law of holes. However, it doesn't really make a difference as you obviously don't plan on following any of this advice, anyway. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I infact have! I've already made a hundred contributions to Simple English Wikipedia. Please, do go look at them. I'll keep working on that regardless, but there's (currently) 614 things I'd like to change here as well. SurferSquall (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jauerback a note for you, please read Simply because I am not able to articulate my points incredibly well does not mean I misunderstand anything about this. It is incredibly frustrating for all of you to go word by word from the proverbial book rather than explaning why six months even matters, given I am blocked for sockpuppetry. If I am unblocked the sockpuppetry will not occur again. I'm sorry but shouldn't that be enough? I've stated multiple times why I was blocked exactly, what actions led to that, and what will and won't happen if I am unblocked. Even then your response is to instead block my talk page access. I am a human. I made shitty mistakes but I want to move on. I wish you would read what I wrote and consider what I've said. I am doing quite the opposite of digging myself a hole, I'm doing my level best to claw my way out of it. I stated before that my edits on my sockpuppet accounts were helpful and perfectly valid- which is true. I made my proposal above- you or another admin could allow me to edit for, say, three days (or even one or an hour or whatever) and which point you could review my edits and attest to the fact they're helpful (because they will be). Yes I am begging a bit, but I swear by what I say. I am asking to be unblocked because I love working on Wikipedia, I have a long, long list of edits I have already planned out, and order to make you or whoever else comfortable, I will take a zero-revert restriction, will leave the IP block in place, accept a one account restriction, allow a checkuser to inspect everything about me, and allow my actions to be monitored (if that's a thing; I've heard of it being done before). SurferSquall (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A few last comments before I stop responding.

1. As explained repeatedly above, sockpuppetry severely undermines the community's trust in you. You seem to have acknowledged this. You wrote that you can't prove that [you] will abide by any imposed restrictions, but asserted that you will. The problem is the community has no evidence that you won't revert to your old habits after things cool off, and has exhausted its trust.
2. The way to regain that trust that is WP:SO. The purpose of the six months is that you A) declare that you won't edit for six months, then B) don't edit for six months, showing the community that you CAN keep your word. You have been asking for, in your words, an enormous extension of trust that [you] don't deserve. WP:SO is the only way I can see for you to get that trust.
3. I'm assuming that when you write things like, If I am unblocked the sockpuppetry will not occur again, you mean "even if I am unblocked..." rather than "iff I am unblocked..." That second one sounds like a threat to sock if your demands aren't met, which I'm pretty sure you didn't mean, but this is a tense situation, and I don't want you to catch flak for a misunderstanding.
4. No, checkusers CANNOT do a check on you on your own request, per WP:CHECKME.
5. This is a core issue: the consensus here seems very clear that you must wait at least six months. Every time you post again asking for a lesser restriction, it comes off as either you not listening or not understanding. This is why nearly every editor has told you to accept the standard offer and not respond.

I've done what I can to help you get back onto the English Wikipedia. If you do not respond until you make a successful unblock request in six months, I will consider that a tremendous victory for all involved. Every time you reply here, it makes that victory a little less likely, and gets you a little closer to losing access to this talk page. I sincerely hope that you return here, in six months, after you make a difference at Simple Wikipedia for that time.EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I am aware the community has no evidence I won’t revert to old habits- the extension of trust I’m asking for is to believe me when I say that. The sockpuppetry will not occur again regardless. I was not aware of WP:CHECKME SurferSquall (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Please dear god read this

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't believe it's fair at all to apply a standard offer to a non-standard situation. * I was blocked on October 15th for disruptive editing after I continued a pointless argument over a source long past the point where I should've realized there was nothing to gain from continuing. I accept this was disruptive editing, and instead of becoming aggressive, wildly argumentative, and writing insanely long walls of text I should have, at least, discussed it in a more civil manner and accept I wasn't going to get my way. In the future I will do exactly that, and will accept consensus as it is and only attempt to change it with a much better worded and reasoned argument. * I then created the account RedundancyAdvocate out of anger at myself for allowing myself to be blocked again over something stupid. At the time I was not aware sockpuppetry was disallowed on Wikipedia, as to my knowledge I had not come across it before. * I contributed extensively to aviation-related topics (see [[1]] < this note here) before it was discovered by another user that my behavior was similar to that of SurferSquall, at which point I was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. I never should have made any sockpuppet accounts, ever. I know now, and I knew after I made my first sockpuppet, that it was against community rules and was one of the worst things I could do on here. For this, I am sorry. * Out of pure anger over my own foolish actions I proceeded to create two more socks, Njsky and Windowcleaner4. Despite the fact I created them out of anger towards myself, I accept that I should not have ever done so, and in doing so I was willfully ignoring the sockpuppet rule which I knew by that point existed. * With those two sockpuppet accounts I continued to contribute a huge amount of information, and undertake several hundred maintenance tasks, mostly in aviation-related articles. I did not edit disruptively or commit any vandalism with any of my sockpuppet accounts. * My current community ban exists solely for the reason I committed sockpuppetry. I accept above all else that creating sockpuppet accounts was not something I ever should have done, nor will I ever do it again. Having done so gives most Wikipedians a good reason not to trust me. however, what bothers me is that WP:SO is simply a general idea based off of what has occurred in the past. It seems to be the automatic response of many, including the admin who reviewed my second unblock request. Six months is a very long time. I have contributed a great deal to Wikipedia- more than four thousand edits in total at this point. It is my hobby, my free time, it is how I spent most of 2023. * Events have occurred this month which have changed my view on the world, my view of myself, and how I conduct myself. Said events are a huge reason I now insist I am a changed person. Despite my previous actions, from this point forwards I will not disruptively edit, will not vandalise, issue any personal attacks, create any more sockpuppets, cause anybody trouble, use unreliable sources, or undertake pointless arguments. * I have fairly severe ADHD; this causes me to appear rambling/ranting quite often when in fact I'm doing my level best to articulate what I mean. It also makes it difficult to explain myself in unblock requests. If anybody seeing this wants to ask me anything I am more than happy to respond and clarify anything. * Having ADHD makes six months, for lack of a better word, torturous. I spent most of my free time in 2023 editing Wikipedia, and not being able to contribute over the last week has left me often laying in my bed staring at the ceiling above me. I don't have a great life, and I don't have much else to spend my time on. * As a benefit of ADHD/attention to detail- I have created a list, currently 614 items long, of what edits I want to make, to what pages, and exactly what I will change. I promise me being allowed to do so would be an immense benefit to the Wikipedia community. You guys have every reason not to believe what I'm saying (other than what can be proven) but still I am asking for a tiny bit of trust. I swear on everything that is holy, my life, my word and myself that you will not regret it. You will have no reason to. WP:SO describes the six-month wait as a way to demonstrate you can follow basic instructions, but that isn't a basic instruction at all. It's six months of boredom, lament, and above all six months of seeing countless mistakes in articles that I cannot fix. Which bothers me beyond belief. I am a human, and a flawed one. I made several incredibly stupid mistakes. But I want a fresh start. I want to continue to contribute extensively to the website I loved so much. Thank you. SurferSquall (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whether you believe it to be fair or not is immaterial, the community discussed your case at length and agreed upon a community ban. You have been told to wait six months for the standard offer by multiple admins, but you continue to state you feel this to be unfair and unreasonable. You are refusing to listen to what is being said to you above, continuing to make unblock requests that you know (because you've been clearly told) will not be heard by an individual admin due to the community ban imposed upon you. Yet you continue to use your talk page to complain about the unfairness and why your case is special. Everyone's patience is worn thin now. Since you continue to use your talk page against the advice given to you, and continue to make unblock requests based on a perceived unfairness (the fact you have ADHD brings no special bearing or consideration to your case) I'm removing your talk page access as this is now just a waste of community time. You may attempt an unblock via the UTRS system after six months, and if you try it before it will just make you unblocking chances worse than they currently are. (And don't bring God into this, they have nothing to do with it.) Canterbury Tail talk 13:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

Concern regarding Draft:Daramgar

Hello, SurferSquall. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Daramgar, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Daramgar

Hello, SurferSquall. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Daramgar".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)