Jump to content

User talk:Wikinegarr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 2023

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Hello . My account has been closed due to improper use of multiple accounts. Persian Wikipedia recognized this inaccuracy and my account was re-released as it was confirmed that the error was unintentional. Because as it can be checked in the history of this user account, I had sent a request to change the name of this account, and for this reason I was not ready to edit the name at that time and I wanted to wait until the name change of this account was accepted. and before accepting it, I will work on another account. For this reason, I used to work on Wikipedia through another account, of course, since I realized that this account, due to its longer history and activity, has facilities such as the Wikipedia library, I preferred to make some edits through this account. do the important thing Also, according to the conditions, I used certain devices for activities and each of these devices was entered in one of the accounts, and the name similarity of the title of this account and the other account, which has the title of Wiki at the beginning of both, caused It was my mistake and lack of attention to the difference in the names of the accounts; In addition, whenever I log in to the current account, I was faced with a problem error in the user session, and there was no other option but to log in to another account. Although no abuse has been done by the other account and as I said, reasons such as my request to change the name of the current user account and my reluctance to operate under the name of this account before accepting the change, the similarity of the name of this account with the name of another account and The occurrence of a user session error when logging into the account, which sometimes forced me to log into another account, caused the accounts to be messed up and this unwanted error, which I guarantee will not be repeated. Even if these factors did not force me to use the blocked accounts, the blocking of my account is a mistake because no abuse has been applied through other accounts and all the small activities with other accounts are temporary and for the aforementioned reasons. were taking place, they were within the framework of Wikipedia's rules. If there has been any abuse or action against Wikipedia rules by those accounts, please inform me about them.

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you on the basis you will use only 1 account from now on. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinegarr (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, is this source valid for proving that accounting involves analysis? : https://web.archive.org/web/20180826094032/http://projectaccountingaustralia.com/what-is-project-accounting/ Wikinegarr (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also these valid sources prove that accounting involves analysis, can i use them ?:https://www.myaccountingcourse.com/accounting-dictionary/management-accounting and https://web.archive.org/web/20150226050507/http://www.cgma.org/Community/DownloadableDocuments/How-management-accounting-drives-sustainable-success.pdf Wikinegarr (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning, don't make up nonsense in talk page comments

[edit]

As I said at Talk:Accounting, it's one thing for you to use an LLM without disclosing you've done so. That's a problem but a problem where perhaps you can become a constructive editor with a little help. It's another for you to continually make up nonsense in your comments. Doing so makes it impossible to trust you going forward, and so impossible that you will ever be a suitable editor here. Please stop this if you want to continue to edit. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, if for some reason you don't want to admit to using a LLM, whatever, I don't think any of us care that much provided you don't keep doing so. The issue is not that you are unwilling to admit it, but that instead of either admitting it or just ignoring the question, you've instead made implausible claims about why your normal contributions are so different from that one identified as an LLM. When I pointed out your first implausible claim made no sense and explained why, again you could have just stopped engaging but decided instead to just keep making more and more such claims. While I'm unlikely to personally take you to ANI over this one case, please do not try this again. If someone challenges you and don't want to answer truthfully, your best option is to refuse to answer or disengage from the discussion. Telling an untruthful answer does not help you in any way especially when it's obvious your answer makes no sense. In other words, while admitting you used an LLM and pledging to not do so ever again was your best option, your second best option was to stop doing so without commenting further on the allegation. You IMO chose close to the worst option by talking about the voice recognition stuff and then continuing down it when I explained why it made no sense. Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne I deny everything you said about me and I request that you stop harassing me and sending me slanderous messages. Wikinegarr (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Accounting. Per Exemplum 22:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that my edits in accounting were vandalizing. Wikinegarr (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this before, stop edit warring over the lead of that article, it is disruptive. MrOllie (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was about rule of analyzing in accounting. It is not about that subject. Wikinegarr (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a new thing Wikinegarr (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same disruptive behavior on the same article. MrOllie (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikinegarr Proof of vandalism was your persistent refusal to follow some of the basic rules governing this encyclopedia. I would recommend learning more about WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS on en-wiki. Per Exemplum 22:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.
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 ~~~~}}.  Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

in a discussion i was proving that the one who deserves being blocked is @MrOllie, not me. Let me complete that discussion and awnser to people and if i couldn't prove that, block me for ever. It is against the rules, i have right for defending myselfe. Let me defend myself on there. Wikinegarr (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No need to lift the block. You can defend yourself here. You can demonstrate that you understand it is entirely appropriate to block you as a result of a discussion you start on WP:AN about another user. You can explain your connection to the blocked account, Wikijournalistt (which may already have been resolved; I didn't look closely and you didn't address this). Yamla (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

hiYamla, In the Persian version of Wikipedia, one of the administrators thought that my use of that account was against Wikipedia’s policies and blocked me. However, after I explained my use of that account, they were convinced that I did not deserve to be blocked, and the block was lifted. So why should I be blocked again on the English version of Wikipedia? Please review the history of this matter on the talk page of my Persian version account. Wikinegarr (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were not blocked because of anything related to the Persian Wikipedia. You were blocked because your sole edits since the previous block have been edit warring, endlessly arguing, and otherwise trying to right some sort of great wrong, and you've refused to accept that consensus is against you.
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. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • Wikinegarr, if you expect admins on the English Wikipedia to investigate the status of your account on the Persian Wikipedia, at the least, you should provide links to the relevant discussions or edits. Admins are busy, they don't have time to hunt down evidence to prove your argument is accurate. You have to at least point in the correct direction by providing links if you want this subject to be considered in an unblock request. Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Read! Talk! See this: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Wikinegarr#c-Liz-20241106081600-November_2024_2Wikinegarr (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikinegarr&oldid=1256401048"