User talk:RedundancyAdvocate

Welcome RedundancyAdvocate!

Ad Orientem (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] 

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Royal Danish Air Force. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RedundancyAdvocate, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as SurferSquall (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I am curious what makes you think this? Looking through that person's page i don't believe we're similar people. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have a lot of warns, sheesh. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simple WP:DUCKTEST. Both of you have mainly edit in aviation page, both also creating redirect for aircraft types, both of your userpage are similar and you seems already somewhat experienced in your editing Wikipedia for new editor. At any case SurferSquall is not blocked user at this point, so it's not a case of misuse multiple accounts yet. Please disclose these connections. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time reading the Manual of Style, I don't wish to mess up Wikipedia with my edits. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by our userpages being similar. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed more than three hundred edits, is that not experience enough? RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And redirect pages have been created by many people, not sure why you think it's just me and surfersquall RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are triggering several WP:SIGNS. While SurferSquall may pose as a problematic user, since he is not blocked user, it's not a case of misuse multiple accounts and you can still continue editing. Ckfasdf (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand I have similar tendencies to that user, but you’re mistaken in thinking I know them. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RedundancyAdvocate! Your additions to General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon operators have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to write it better without copyvio. My bad RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Arturo Merino Benítez International Airport, 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) 22:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Uzbekistan Airways, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. There is a discussion about reliability of SimpleFlying on RSN. More opinions are welcome. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seems a pretty simple issue to solve . RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Avgeekamfot (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Daniel (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel by restoring the redirect links to it, you are putting me in danger as I had them deleted for safety reasons unrelated to any of this. Thanks for nothing! RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal sympathy given you've been abusively sockpuppeteering, and have subsequently been caught. Given you clearly lied in this post, I have no reason to trust anything you say. Daniel (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn’t- I said that specifically wasn’t great justification, which is correct.RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL this is like when he said he didn't argue that a blog is equivalent to Nikkei when he literally edit warred and argued had similar issues. This is splitting hairs. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you have to be rude about it? I’m saying I wanted something changed to keep myself away from others outside of Wikipedia, and you choose to be mean about it. Not to mention you haven’t told me what i did that justifies an indefinite block, other than “illegitimate edits”. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I so "rude" about it? Because disruptive behaviours like yours here drive away good editors like Avgeekamfot, who get sick and tired of dealing with editors who edit war and then sockpuppet to manipulate consensus and evade blocks. You were blocked three times in the space of a few months on your other account for disruptive editing and edit warring. You used both accounts to edit-war and revert on the same articles. You then lied about using multiple accounts (I don't care how you want to try split hairs on this, you were clearly being evasive when caught). You are the definition of an editor who has a net negative impact on the project and other good-faith editors. That is why I'm rude about it. I personally don't want editors like you near this project, at least right now - this may change if you sit it out for six months, don't sockpuppet to evade your block, and then request an unblock - as per Yamla below. We have a good-faith editor retention problem as it is, and I want to protect and insulate good editors against behaviour like your sockpuppetry and other assorted disruptive editing tactics. Daniel (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RedundancyAdvocate Also, you cannot create any more accounts to continue your problematic attitude. This is indeed a good block as per the consensus at ANI, and given you, as a person have been blocked under User:SurferSquall 3 times in less than a year. You can only make another unblock request six months from the date of your current block (27 June 2024) to be considered for unblocking. If you continue to persist in sockpuppetry and evade your block, the date when you may be considered for unblocking under WP:SO can easily change to six months from when any new sockpuppet created by you is blocked as well. ST7733B (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, I am not an administrator and not the only involved editor. But speaking for myself: As the target of quite a bit of RedundancyAdvocate's rudeness/attacks and the one who brought this case to administrators, I would prefer a shorter block than six months if they commit to behaving more respectfully in discussions, not edit warring, and continuing arguments beyond their usefulness. We share a common interest in aviation-related topics and if they are willing to engage more thoughtfully without contentiousness, another editor with a different approach would be positive to collaborate with. Their work updating fleet tables would be particularly helpful if they limited themselves to recognized reliable sources (not SF or Planespotters).

This is just my 2-cents as an inexperienced editor involved in this whole thing. I'm sure other editors who had conflicts with RedundancyAdvocate/SurferSquall's incivility might feel differently and the decision will ultimately be up to Wikipedia administrators/staff. Avgeekamfot (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I realize my mistake- I shouldn’t have edited with this account while my other was blocked. I understand i shouldn’t have done that and I’m sorry. However, the block on my other account at the time was illegitimate- I should have appealed it. I was mistakenly under the belief that it wouldn’t matter because of that. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your long history of inappropriate and abusive behaviour and given your recent abuse of multiple accounts, there's no reasonable possibility your block will be lifted in the near future. Your best bet is to go six months with zero edits, then apply under WP:SO. At that point, you'll need to directly address your chronic problematic editing. Yamla (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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