User talk:Trimpops2

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome Trimpops2!

Hello Trimpops2. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Paine Ellsworth, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{Help me}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost   Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Sincerely, P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} (Leave me a message) 12:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.

You saw this alert on top of Talk:Srebrenica massacre, but let's have it here just to be safe. --Joy (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Trimpops2! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

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

Learn more about editing

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

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

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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

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

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

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

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

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

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

If you continue to violate WP:ECR as you did here, you will be blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, I didn't know. Thanks for warning me, I'll stop posting there. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July regarding a requested move in which you participated. The thread is Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July#Srebrenica_massacre. Thank you. 122141510 (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Nikola Tesla. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. 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. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You collapsed my post and I reverted only one time. I don't think it's fair to leave such a message after only 1 revert. Now it appears to others that I have been edit warring. When I have collapsed your post some time ago, and you reverted I didn't make such a post to your talk page. Then after IP collapsed it and you reverted for the second time, even then I didn't make scuh post to your talk page. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

AN

If you really want to close that section, stop posting. You alone have now posted over 1,500 words. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC) ~~ AirshipJungleman29. Ok, I won't post there anymore. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29, just to let you know. I see that I'm being mentioned and I would like to respond to IPs comment, so although I said that I won't post anymore, I think that I will post some more. Trimpops2 (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Tesla RfC review

Just to point out this to you, if you haven't noticed. [1]95.168.105.29 (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course I saw that. I see everything. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish if you didn't notice, user 95 is another person from user 93 who posted that comment. User 95 is not blocked. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not the same person. Why did you remove my comment? I'm actually interested in response to that post. That is why I posted it to Trimpops2. Can you tell me, is it allowed for me to report that comment, of course by removing personal attacks. The AN will be unprotected tomorrow95.168.116.19 (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It's just a mistake by ScottishFinnishRadish. He didn't watch over my talk page to be able so quickly to revert. They have tools to get notifications in the case that post is reverted or transferred, etc. It's because the user can sock and and it's just an automated revert from ScottishFinnishRadish. He thought you are the same user because you were posting his content. I saw the original post, it got removed because it contained personal attacks. There are no rules that would prevent you from reposting, but, as you said, if you repeat personal attacks it will be sanctioned. Yes, you must remove personal attacks. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you post it? I will post it tomorrow then, but it might be too late. 95.168.116.19 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Me? No, lol. Did you read my posts in the review? The best that I can ask is not to close the review until the board is unprotected so IPs can share their view. ~~ AirshipJungleman29, I said I won't post to the review thread anymore. This user wants to post the comment. Is it possible to leave the review opened for IPs to share their comments as there were several IP editors in the discussion. The request is a bit strange, he wants to take the post that got deleted for PA. As I understood he will rewrite it to be without personal attacks. A bit strange, but not forbidden. Trimpops2 (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes I want that to be answered. Everyone there is just saying that the closure is good, but no one is answering the actual complaints risen. 95.168.116.19 (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure you are evading your block. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to post this comment. Trimpops2, regardless of your stand, can you be objective and please post it. I have participated in the RfC, I should be allowed to post this before the review is closed.

I would like to point out that this review didn't address a single point of complaint. Several were made and not a single editor has addresed. Everyone just says I agree, but this isn't a proper way to have a review. Points should be addressed. We can't just say, yes I agree and neglect all the points. I will repeat what others have said in my own words. I hope that those points will be addressed in this closure.

The closure is improper. It states some very questinable things from the standpoint of objectivity. It states some claims which are easily proven as false. Most importantly, it provides zero explanation how the consensus was determined in the regard of addressing how the sources and various points in the RfC were considered when determining the consensus. It also has some very questionable actions by the closing editor which lack objectivity. The closing editor in the first part of the closing statement lists all things wrong with the RfC intro and with actions of various editors in the discussion. I'll circle back to that,because I wan't to address the most important thing. In the second paragraph it summerizes what the RfC is asking. Here we have one minor complaint. The closing admin claims that he had to sumerize the RfC questions which isn't true. Those are clearly stated. In the last paragraph the consensus is provided as "no consensus". The problem here is , and this can't be argues whether it is here or there as some other points later on could be argued. The problem is that the closing editor just says that there is no consensus. No sources were addressed, no points from RfC were addressed. Absolutely no explanation at all. The only thing that is said is that the RfC was ill-formed, which isn't correct, as I'll argue later and that he had difficulties because of POV pushing (here it was correctly pointed out that the responsibility of the closing editor is to sort out objective points vs POV pushing). The problem here is bigger, because this was pointed to the closing editor several times, and he still hasn't addressed this nor provided any explanation on how the sources and points were considered. This is still the main problem with this closure as no one yet has provided that explanation. We can't just close RfCs with "no consensus" explanation and refuse to provide explanation on points and sources.

Let's circle back to first paragraph. Several claims there are exaggerated to the point of being false. Several points are completely false.

Regarding whether RfC was brief. Guidelines say Outside of exceptional circumstances, the RfC question should not be longer than a few sentences.. The RfC isn't out of that boundaries. In the first sentence is mentions past discussion. In the sencond it mentiones the present article text that is pusposed to be changed. It then quotes 2 sources and it asks 2 questions. That's 6 senteces in total. This isn't outside the scope to call it "not brief". Certainly nothing to complain about and call it "not brief" to the point of being disruptive to the RfC discussion. Nobody actually from all editors in the discussion has complained it isn't brief. This was done only by the closing editor. It's more subjective whether 6 or 4 senteces would be the definition of "few", but as I said , nothing to complain about.

Regarding neutrality. The closing editor didn't provide any explanation in the closure to why the RfC isn't neutral. This isn't correct as this is a strong statement to make. When asked, he provided an example of how the RfC should have been formulated, which is exactly the same as the 2nd question of this RfC. Both his example and the RfC 2nd question perfectly follow the example from guiedelines Should the sentence [quote sentence here, with citations] be included in the History section of the article?. He was asked several times to explain how his sentence is neutral, but the one from RfC isn't. He still didn't address that. I think this is completely false to claim that RfC isn't neutral with such argument.

Claiming that RfC is often incorrect is exaggregation. It failed to mention that there was another previous discussion, but that was quickly corrected in the discussion. And yes, sources were known before. This were honest mistakes and swiftly corrected by other editors in the discussion. Nothing major that could be characterized as "often" and nothing what would swey the result of the RfC.

The closing editor claimed that there isn't a single bit of WP:WRFC that was followd. Here we have a major problem. We was challanged on that and he doubled down, and repreated that there really isn't a singe bit of WP:WRFC that was followd. This just lacks objectivity. I think WP:WRFC was followed, but since the editor dug himself into the claim that a single bit wasn't followed I will mention only this. The 2nd question is exactly of the format as suggested by guidelines Should the sentence [quote sentence here, with citations] be included in the History section of the article?. And All other things being equal, choose the question with the smallest number of possible answers. this was followed. Questions are of yes/no type. This is something we can't argue about whether it is there or not. This quidelines are proveably followed. This is just tip of the iceberg. Many others if not all of them were followed, and to make such a claim and dig into it, to claim that not a singel was followed, just shows the lack of objectivity.

The closing editor claimed sources were vaguely mentioned when asked about it he again dig himself into a strange statement that no-one...actually discussed them.. This is completely false as seem from the discussion. User ActivelyDisinterested had extensively discussed sources with Trimpops2 and IP 77. Others have also discussed sources. To claim that no one discussed them shows the lack of objectivity. 95.168.116.19 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 is the closing editor, he should be objective one here and post to AN because this is addressing his closure. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I will wait for the judgement of Doug Weller on whether this is the previous IP/User:Gtvrporte—I have no wish to participate in proxy editing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Is SPI opened? Is Doug Weller SPI clerk? Also, to be fair this upper comment is a copy and rewrite from the IP 93. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, no ~~ AirshipJungleman29, I think we both are wrong. I think Doug Weller is saying that the IP is possibly the blocked user Bilseric. But we already had that SPI [2]. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the SPI was closed because CUs can't connect IPs and accounts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, do your thing. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

That is what I'm saying. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The proper way is to make an SPI. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyways, IP , why are you posting this to my talk page. You should have posted to ~~ AirshipJungleman29's.

I find this all very...I can't find the correct word. I'm really interested if spintheer is following all this since he said in the RfC but a cursory reading doesn't seem to show any editor who disagrees with adding the proposed sentence to the article based on the sources provided.. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No, sorry, I sort of disengaged because I had trouble following the discussion. As a result, I'm not familiar enough with the situation to make an intelligent comment here. spintheer (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

That's ok. We have together reached a consensus that the claim that Tesla was born in Croatia at that time is, as one Croatian editor have called it, a weird Croatian propaganda. Trimpops2 (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

A što radiš? 95.168.116.29 (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Što radim? Trimpops2 (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Slažeš se s njima, a bio si protiv. 95.168.116.29 (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Rješavam stvari. Dosta je bilo prepucavanja. Il je rođen u Hrvatskoj ili nije, neka bude jasno rečeno i bok. A ne ovako, i je i nije pa jedni jedno, a drugi drugo vuku i tako godinama. Vidiš da su ova 2 Hrvata na njihovoj strani i to im je donijelo prevagu. Ovaj me i blokat hoće. A i onaj avnoj je bio protiv isticanja toga, iako se slagao sa time da je rođen u Hrvatskoj. Nema veze, nisam ja ni na jednoj strani, ja sam na strani toga da bude jasno rečeno. Čitaj što sam pisao u raspravi i vidjet ćeš da sam to uvijek tvrdio. To što sam jednu stranu zastupao, nema veze. Glavni motiv mi je bio da bude jasno rečeno. Očito je može biti jasno rečeno da je u Hrvatskoj, i to je to. Gotovo je, nije u Hrvatskoj rođen i bok , stvar riješena. Dao sam im dosta izvora i sve sam propisno napravio. Tko hoće da mu bude jasno, jasno mu je. Svi si mogu pročitati i izvore i raspravu sami i nek si sami donesu zaključke. A to što sad prigovaraju kad im citiram sve što su sami rekli , to je njihov problem. Trimpops2 (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Dobro. Ja im svejedno hoću postati ovo gore. Ali kako da prigovorim da je kriv konsenzus kad nije dao nikako objašnjenje. Nemam se na što uloviti za prigovor, on ne daje objašnjenje. A ovo što je o tvom otvaranju rekao nije točno. Pita ga ovaj drugi ip , kako to da nije neutralno i kako bi bilo neutralno, i ovaj mu da istu rečenicu kakvu si ti složio. Daj zamisli. I onda kaže da se izvori nisu uopće raspravljali , to jednostavno nije točno. 95.168.116.29 (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Rekao sam ti, sve vidim. Svatko ima svoj mozak. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Ali bannati će te95.168.116.29 (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Možda, ali to neće biti po pravilima pa neka se vidi. Uostalom, što će postići? Raspravu su dobili i ako ja išta pokušam protiv toga, bit ću istog trena maknut. Jedino što im sada smeta je to što ponavljam ono što su sami rekli. Razmisli sam i reci ,objektivno, zašto bi ih to smetalo? Ne bi trebalo, a sigurno ne toliko da moram biti ban-an. Ali, eto, vidjet ćemo pa nek bude dokumentirano barem. Ima tu i koji novinar dosta materijala za zanimljiv članak. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Guys, you do know Google Translate exists, right? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much common knowledge. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Trimpops2, you are a hair away from being blocked. First, talk ONLY English on this project. Second, I've now blocked two Croatian IPs - who are they? Are you using them instead of logging in? Is it someone you know? You must answer these questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

who are they? IP 95 is the user who has participated in the RfC from the beggining. I think that's obvious. His IP constantly changes, but any SPI clerk will explain to you that's normal. Are you using them instead of logging in? no. Is it someone you know? no. You must answer these questions Here, I have answered every one.

Now you answer me. Is it forbidden to post on another langauge on one's talkpage. I want the WP rule saying explicitly it's forbidden. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I have the full right to restore the content you have deleted. Will you go to edit warring, or will you block me instantly if I restore? Trimpops2 (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You are no position to be demanding and peremptory. It is generally ill-advised to use a foreign language on your Talk page, but because of the attention you've attracted, in this instance it's unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm allowed to post on my talk page on any other language. You are in no position to demand otherwise. However to resolve this, because I don't want to dispute with you under such threats that I'm a hair away from being blocked I will cease and promise to post only on English. I have posted on Croatian only because the IP talked to me on Croatian. And as I said, I'm allowed to do so without any threats. Bbb23, you didn't answer my other question. I have answered all your questions and please answer the other question. I have the full right to restore the content on my talk page which you have removed. This is not subjected to opinion and arguments. I will ask you again. Will you pursue your threats if I restore it? Trimpops2 (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The only reason I did not remove the other Croatian conversation (still there) is because another user responded. Do not restore the later discussion in Croatian. I'm done here for the moment, meaning I do not want to argue with you anymore about this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question that I have asked. I didn't ask you whether I can or cannot restore. I have asked you if you are going to implement your threat of banning me if I restore. Please answer yes or no. I'm not asking for permision, this is my talk page, Wikipedia is not your project, and I'm in the full right to restore. However, seen what you have done to the IP, I suspect that you will pursue your threats if I implement my full right. I'm done here for the moment Fine, I'm not in a hurry. I have been fair. I made a concesion that I will write only on English, although I'm in the full right to write on Croatian. And you can't even answer my YES/NO question? Trimpops2 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Note to anyone reading this. Bbb23 has deleted this content. [3]. I don't think it's much important, but just to have the full picture of what has happened here. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2024 (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).

Trimpops2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Of course , that is how it's going to be? You just went and realized your threat. I know I don't stand a change, but let's play this game. I'll start with, why am I being blocked. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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

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

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. —Ingenuity (t • c) 23:04, 24 August 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.

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).

Trimpops2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ingenuity. No reasons were given. It says that it appears that I'm not here to build Wikipedia. I know how you work. Now I will have the burden of proof to explain how I am here to build Wikipedia, and you will decline and so on. Classic template. No I will not play that game. The burden of proof isn't on me. The burden of proof is on you to explain why I'm blocked. I am here to build Wikipedia. I have done no damage to Wikipedia. Now I will play the same game and say. Please address where I have done damage to Wikipedia. Bbb23 hasn't claimed I have done any damage. You are giving me a template. No, I have not done any damage, I was not blocked with an explanation that I have done any damage. The block is no longer necessary because it wasn't necessary in the first place. I understand perfectly why I was blocked. Anyone who has read the discussion on my talk page will understand. I have not damaged or disrupted Wikipedia, and of course I won't do it. I have done very useful contributions and of course I will continue to do so. Here, I have answered all your points. I'm not naive, you gave me a template, you didn't look at what happened at all. There's no valid readon to be blocked. Bbb23 is exercising his power becuse I have been talking to him in a harsh tone. Well he started it with coming to my talk with threats of being blocked. He demanded that I stop posting on Croatian on my talk page. I explained to him that I have the full right to do so, but not to get into conflicts with him, I have promised to write on exclusively on English. This was resolved, but then he has deleted content from my talk page. I have asked him in the harsh tone if he is going to act on his threats if I revert. I explained the I have the full right to revert. I have asked just to say yes or no, if I do. This has promped him to block me. This is what has happened and let's see how objective you are. And please don't give me that digging up history for any misconduct you can use now to support your block. This is not what happened, all what has happened is on my talk page, and on the IP takl page where I have called Bbb23 for improper block. Don't give me templates. I'm familiar with all your tricks of trait and you should be aware that I'm not just some inexperienced user that will play this game where I stand no change to win. Yes, at this point I'm not polite, but harsh tone apart, what I have said is true and you have absolutely no reason to block me. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block log clearly states the reason you are blocked. I see nothing here indicating those reasons are incorrect. It's pretty clear that a collaborative project like this isn't for you, at least not without a radical change in attitude. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 25 August 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.

• Bbb23 gave a very clear reason for your block: Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia; WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:SPA; unable to collaborate; arrogant, demanding attitude toward other editors. From what I've seen, that's spot-on to your behaviour. —Ingenuity (t • c) 23:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• "I have done very useful contributions" You have made 4 edits to articles, 3 of which were reverted. Schazjmd (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you read my comments now when I'm obviously antagonized. Of course this looks so. You didn't read anything apart from this few last comments which I did in harsh tone. I wasn't antagonized until he came to my talk page with threats. Yes, support him. He comes with threats, blocks and antagonizes me and it's all my fault. Look at the way he talked to me. What now, if I had the power to block him, I could talk to him like that and when he gets antagonized and writes in harsh tone, I block him, and other admins will support that. This isn't correct. You didn't read anything past this last few posts to claim that I'm clearly not here to build an encyclopedia; WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:SPA; unable to collaborate; arrogant, demanding attitude toward other editors. You simply didn't have time, and we both know you didn't read past this few comments. Now try to be objective. Look who started this. Look how he came to my talk page with threats and demands and tell me. Who started this and whose fault it is? What, I should have been affraid, I should bow my head because he's the admin. I should go past that kind of talk to me. He stated 2 false things and demanded from me that I follow them. No this isn't the way an admin should behave. At this point we should look past my comments being harsh to you or him. We should look at what has happened. Him coming with threats and demands. I MUST answer him, with capital letters and so on. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From what I've seen, your entire editing history has been an exercise in being antagonisistic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

 —Ingenuity (t • c) 23:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity and Bbb23: see Pupshusk. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

UTRS

UTRS appeal #92506 has been declined. JBW (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)