User talk:Balancingakt
Welcome Balancingakt!
I'm Walter Görlitz, 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: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} 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:
|
|
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 user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
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.
Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey Balancingakt, thanks for your message on my talk page and welcome to Wikipedia.
Regarding the edits you proposed and which I reverted, I would recommend you start a discussion on the article's talk page. You can propose the information you think should be included in the article, and other editors can provide feedback and suggestions. The result of that discussion may well be to include the information you proposed, but it would be as the result of community consensus to include it.
It seems you have a good understanding of sourcing information, but as you are new to Wikipedia, it would be a good idea to take a look at the relevant Wikipedia policy.
All the best. — Manticore 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia
[edit]
Hi Balancingakt! Thank you for your edits to CBC News. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Canadian Broadcasting Corporation into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Removing citations
[edit]Please don't remove citations just because they have dead URLs in them -- for example, here is one that you removed from Sovereign Military Order of Malta: "Agreement Between The Government of Malta and The Government of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta". p. 1093. Retrieved 20 June 2018.. Please see WP:OFFLINE: the fact that the URL doesn't work is immaterial. This is a perfectly acceptable citation without the link -- it's got a document name and a page number, which anyone can still use to look up this document just fine. What you're doing is simply erasing references from articles. jp×g🗯️ 06:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
November 2023
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Unjustified Block
[edit]
Balancingakt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User Ritchie333 has blocked me communicating in the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. I provided Ritchie with several requests in advance as to why they threatened me with block and why they blocked me after they did so. No rationale was ever provided. I question whether there is rationale for a block at all. I was only ever providing constructive, civil posts, clarifying or adding new information to a large amount of posts that were responding to my ANI topic. The only issue I can think of is retaliation for providing evidence to disagree with Ritchie333. I acknowledge I made a lot of posts the ANI space, but it was necessary to accurately respond and clarify comments to the surprisingly popular topic I started in a reader-efficient way. No one, certainly not Ritchie333, informed me that it may have been excessive nor why. I am concerned that without access to the Earl Andrew thread I started, which identified that an article for a corporation is being disruptively edited by a verifiable employee of that company, the discussion will be robbed of full, correct information for ANI Wikipedians. I am not here to be annoying nor uncivil. I am happy to adjust if administrators provide direction that I am running up against a line. I just want to ensure Wikipedians make decisions on good information. Is this a community or a tyranny? Balancingakt (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block. Multiple people have tried to tell you that your behavior and editing, both on the article and in the ANI thread, are inappropriate, and you respond by repeatedly ignoring it and saying the same thing over and over. You have said, five times, in bolded text each time, the verbatim phrase "Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article". You have already been given an answer: the answer is "no". You are misinterpreting the policies in question here. This is what everyone is trying to tell you. Please listen to them. jp×g🗯️ 12:09, 16 November 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.
Unjustified Block re: Ritchie333 and JPxG
[edit]Balancingakt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Without the explanation required by Wikipedia policy, Ritchie333 has blocked me communicating in the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents and JPxG has declined the initial review, despite being directly involved in the discussion.
No reason for the original block was provided, which is in violation of policy. Ritchie333 and JPxG have used that to suggest I have not acknowledged the reason for the block, which was never made clear. The original discussion involved me using evidence to disagree with Ritchie and JPxG, which led to my "ban" without any explanation as policy requires.
WP:Blocking Policy specifies that: administrators must supply a clear and specific reason why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them. Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page. It is usually easier to explain the reason for a block at the time it is applied than afterwards. None of this was provided by Ritchie333. JPxG has not specified the reason for the block. The only issue I can think of is retaliation for providing evidence to disagree with Ritchie333 and JPxG.
I provided Ritchie with several requests in advance as to why they threatened me with block and why they blocked me after they did so. No rationale was ever provided. I question whether there is rationale for a block at all. JPxG tried to provide explanation over several edits to their decline of my appeal, but their reason is false and not aligned with any policy. I was only ever providing constructive, civil posts, clarifying or adding new information to a large amount of posts that were responding to my ANI topic. JPxG is not telling the truth: no one provided a direct answer to my question seeking resolution, which is why I saw need to repeat it. The discussion kept getting derailed off-topic.
I acknowledge I made a lot of posts the ANI space, but it was necessary to accurately respond and clarify comments to the surprisingly popular topic I started in a reader-efficient way. No one, certainly not Ritchie333, informed me that it may have been excessive nor why. I am concerned that without access to the Earl Andrew thread I started, which identified that an article for a corporation is being disruptively edited by a verifiable employee of that company, the discussion will be robbed of full, correct information for ANI Wikipedians.
I am not here to be annoying nor uncivil. I am happy to adjust if administrators provide direction that I am running up against a line. I just want to ensure Wikipedians make decisions on good information and I am treated fairly and clearly.
Can a neutral administrator weigh in? Balancingakt (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It is demonstratably false that "no reason for the original block was provided", the block log clearly states "disruptive editing and bludgeoning of discussions". It's not Wikipedia jargon, but a clear statement. I concur with JPxG. Good block. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 16 November 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.