User talk:Aaron106

Welcome!

Hello, Aaron106, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Staney Hill, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! MJ94 (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Staney Hill requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MJ94 (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaaron, I noticed you tried to sign your message incorrectly. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Jr8825 • Talk 23:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to add info about Nas vs. Tupac. I think I'm gonna be putting in a lot of work on this article when I'm able to. I think I'm pretty far from finished at the moment. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help cleanup. Thanks you. Guoimd (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me? Guoimd (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guoimd: Sure --Aaron106 (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+delete template. Guoimd (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent a cleanup request, hopefully they approve it @Guoimd: --Aaron106 (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna. Platonk (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be unaware but they are a sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna. I suggest you ignore them. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: Got it --Aaron106 (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 January 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Diamond and Silk, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this account as the editing pattern on User talk:Drmies is exceptionally unusual. I therefore suspect this account is compromised. If you can, in no more than three edits, explain what was going on there, explain why you needed to make more than 70 edits to another user's talk page, I'll be happy to consider unblocking you. --Yamla (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla Hi sorry about that, that's not how I usally edit [1]. I was talking to a administrator about a suspected sockpuppet, and was adjusting my words to try make my grammar a bit better. I apologize. Aaron106 (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I told you no more than three edits and you made seven. I'm concerned something's going on here. If there's something causing you to act this way, you absolutely don't need to tell us but do need to step back until it's over (and I very, very sincerely wish you well). I, or any other admin, will be happy to unblock you once we are sure you are no longer going to edit in this manner but at the moment, you clearly aren't capable of restraining yourself. I want to be clear, I fully believe you are a constructive editor apart from this. If you are willing to be restricted to no more than one revision per page per 24 hour period or if you can convince us whatever is currently going on with you has stopped, your block will be lifted. --Yamla (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla My apologies. I will only try to edit in replies once from now on Aaron106 (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will immediately unblock you if you commit to "no more than one edit, per page, per 24 hour period". Is that acceptable to you? Also, Wikipedia has a preview feature which you may find helpful. You probably already know about it, but not everyone does. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats fine Aaron106 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have lifted your block. Note that the restriction is only around "refactoring". These changes, for example, consists of introducing new content (perfectly fine!) followed by six refactors (not fine, too many). If you have any questions, please ask. Welcome back and thanks for clearing this up with me. Happy editing! --Yamla (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Hi I read up Wikipedia and found three-revert-rule. If I see vandalism It might take two edits before I noticed like here. [2][3] Waiting 24 hours after an edit is a bit of pain. If I were to opt out of this program would I have to wait a week block? This was my first time being blocked and I don’t want this to happen again and would only edit under 3 times on a page going forwards. Aaron106 (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting straightforward vandalism is fine and doesn't count. Similarly, if you and Drmies are discussing a matter, you don't need to wait 24 hours between responses. Like the link above, it's the endless refactoring of your comments that are disruptive. That (and only that) is what the problem is. If you go back to editing like that, I'm afraid I'd have to reimpose a block until we are convinced you'll stop. It's not a punishment, it's simply to prevent disruption. Let me know if you are still uncertain about anything. --Yamla (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla I mean under 3 edits on the same page. Articles and user pages, that’s what I would do as I know now that is the limit. Aaron106 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are asking. WP:EW and WP:3RR does not apply to straight-forward vandalism. Let's imagine someone is vandalising iPhone 13 to claim this is a product by Google instead of Apple. You are free to revert that change six times in a day. That only applies to straight-forward vandalism, so you have to be cautious. If someone is instead changing the colour code for the pink version, changing it to a slightly different version of pink, that's probably not straight-forward vandalism so you should know that too many reverts would trigger WP:3RR and/or WP:EW. With regard to your specific unblock conditions, I'll note that you violated your unblock conditions by doing this refactor followed by this one. Remember, you promised to perform no more than one per 24 hour period and you just did two. If that happens again, I will immediately reimpose your block. --Yamla (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Sorry I did under 3 as an example. I meant to mean that’s what Wikipedia rules are, under 3 edits on the same page per day. I did not know that before and would like to opt out of the 24 hour per edit as I now know Wikipedia only always 3 edits on the same day per page. Aaron106 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot opt out of Wikipedia policies. --Yamla (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla But am I on 1 edit on same page per 24 hours forever? Aaron106 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock condition is forever, yes. You are free to appeal this, no sooner than six months from now. At that point, I'd expect you to explain what has changed such that we can be sure you won't resume your prior disruptive behaviour. --Yamla (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla I read the three-revert-rule which I did not know about, if I had known this I would never of edited pages past 3. Aaron106 (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, now you know about WP:3RR. You also know that you are under more strict conditions. --Yamla (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have to wait 6 months to file a appeal? And how do I do that when my account is technically unblocked? Aaron106 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You freely accepted the conditions of the unblock. If you prefer, I can reblock you indefinitely. Your editing has been extremely disruptive; see WP:DISRUPT. Looking back at your prior editing history, this is most certainly not the first time, either. You need to take the next few months to demonstrate, through your editing, that you are capable of refraining from multiple refactors of your edits. If you are able to do so, the condition will be lifted. If not, I'm afraid Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Frankly, this restriction should not be onerous for you. I'm deeply, deeply concerned, deeply disturbed, that you think it will be. --Yamla (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been blocked before, and never knew about 3RR. If I had known about it I would of edited pages under 3 edits per day. I know now what the rules are. The wait of the appeal is horrible if I can demonstrate in weeks I can edit the same page once at a time. Aaron106 (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR is not relevant here. You weren't blocked for violating WP:3RR but for your disruptive editing. Really, I'm getting tired of responding to you here. Your continued arguing about this is itself disruptive. You accepted the unblock conditions. If you no longer wish to accept that agreement, let me know. Otherwise, WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Yamla (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify this restriction is just for refractoring my comments? Say if I want to edit a article in under 3 edits I can do that Aaron106 (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's for refactoring anything. You can edit an article in a single edit. You can make one more edit to that article to correct your earlier edit. That's it. You can still edit a different section of that same article and that would be okay. Basically, I don't want to see you making endless refactors. It's wildly abusive. --Yamla (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yalma Ok you are a saying 1 more edit to correct your earlier edit in the article if that happens, And in a different section of the article it could be 3 edits aslong as it's not refactoring anything. Aaron106 (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is disruptive. I expect you to stop asking these incessant questions. If you lack the competence to understand, Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Yes, I'm saying you can make multiple edits so long as it is not refactoring anything. You are still required to adhere to Wikipedia policies such as WP:3RR and WP:EW and WP:DISRUPT, of course. --Yamla (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you don’t have to reply to this but this would be my last question

So just so I fully understand:

You are only allowed one edit on articles (to correct an earlier edit) does this apply to talk pages aswell?

No more than three edits on articles, aslong as it’s not refactoring anything.

Say if I’m working in my Sandbox, or common.css which is sometimes refactoring, is the limit the same as that?

That’s it. I won’t reply anymore

Aaron106 (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of indefinitely 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Yamla (talk) 12:13, 5 May 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).

Aaron106 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Unfair Indefinite block

Decline reason:

You reverted 7 times which is against WP:3RR. Blocking you is not unfair, or an abuse of power. You could be unblocked, if you agree not to edit war in future. I am declining this request. PhilKnight (talk) 15:19, 5 May 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.

This was my first time being blocked. Instead of a 24 hour ban he gave me an indefinite ban. I previously didn't know you weren't allowed to edit pages more than 3 times. He then stated I would be unblocked only if I commit to his unblock condition, it’s not in Wikipedia guidelines otherwise I would read it on a rule page. You originally stated "If you have any questions, please ask!" and i am asking you. I don’t know if your condition applies to Sandbox or common.css? It’s not explained. You made this condition, I cannot read it somewhere. This is abuse of power. Aaron106 (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight Those revisions were sent before I knew about WP:3RR. I said a hour later had just read up on WP:3RR [4] and complied with it. --Aaron106 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should say that in your next unblock request. But also, commit to not edit warring in future. PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 5 May 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).

Aaron106 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I now know about WP:3RR

Decline reason:

This isn't a sufficient unblock request as it does not demonstrate familiarity with our edit warring policy. The comment below on May 8 is a step in the right direction, but given that prior comments betray a misunderstanding of our edit warring policy, I'm going to ask you to file a new request that better explains what edit warring is (hint: you need to address edit warring that falls short of 3RR). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:11, 15 May 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.

Hi, previously i was unfamiliar with WP:3RR. I read up on WP:3RR yesterday [5] posted at 1:50 p.m. and have complied with it since. Aaron106 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you read WP:EDITWAR more closely. You were blocked because you edit warred to the point of triggering what's basically an automatic block. But the actual problem isn't triggering the block, it's the edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read WP:EDITWAR more closely; and will reach consensus on a talk page with other editor's going forward. Aaron106 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 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).

Aaron106 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Edit warring is a behavior typically by the use of repeated edits to win a content dispute, reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring and at the same time content disputes even egregious points of view edits and good faith changes do not constitute vandalism. I understand this now; and will fully abided by this policy in the future. --Aaron106 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

On 4 May, you stated, in your own words, @Yamla I read the three-revert-rule which I did not know about.... Now, in both your 15 May unblock appeal and in this one, you're trying to act like 3RR was news to you, but in your very own words, you were already aware of it. I'm declining this request accordingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

I only read the three-revert-rule section on May 4, I did not read the whole edit warring policy. As soon as jpgordon told me on May 8 to read WP:EDITWAR more closely I read up about it, learned about it fully and submitted my request. --Aaron106 (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email, asking me to review your latest unblock request. Having already reviewed one of your requests, I will leave it to other admins to review your current, and any future requests. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. Aaron106 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]