User talk:LittleDipper

A tag has been placed on User:LittleDipper, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
• It appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Widefox; talk 22:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Disruptive only account. [1] Widefox; talk 22:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LittleDipper. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ancient Japanese art".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that you have problems with Disruptive edits. Before to add quotes, it is necessary a reliable source, seems that you don't have any reliable source that supports your sentence. that is why I deleted your edit. Please Before to add something , be sure to make with sources. Thanks.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unsourced, it is found in the first pargraph of the lead.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 13:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Honestly think that Wikipedia is not for you.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think that if you think I am POV, you are wrong. Most history books list Ancient Israel as a foundation of the West alongside Ancient Greece and Rome, and it needs to have some kind of representation on the lead, as Ancient Greece and Rome are represented. Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 14:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have nothing against with the hebrew culture , but seems that you guys want only make pro POV propaganda , there several cultures as the Persian one and others that have great impact in the Western culture not only the hebrew culture!LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Western World shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Khirurg (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the onus is on you to discuss your changes, because you are the one who introduced a new change.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 01:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LittleDipper reported by User:Khirurg (Result: ). Thank you. Khirurg (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Western world, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hellenism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason= I'm sorry. My edit warring was me making (apparently failed) attempts to uphold WP:ONUS). As for the personal attacks, it's just that I got carried away because I was afraid of not having the guts to go on, and tried to boost myself, that I forgot the No Personal attacks rule. Some were attacks that I didn't know were attacks. I promise never to do such a thing again.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 18:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC) ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 17 March 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry. My edit warring was me making (apparently failed) attempts to uphold WP:ONUS). As for the personal attacks, it's just that I got carried away because I was afraid of not having the guts to go on, and tried to boost myself, that I forgot the No Personal attacks rule. Some were attacks that I didn't know were attacks. I promise never to do such a thing again.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 18:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC) ~~~~[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing in this request gives a reassurance that such problems won't recur. WP:ONUS says the exact opposite of what you try to justify with it. And "trying to boost yourself" with personal attacks because you "were afraid of not having the guts to go on"? We're here to collaboratively write an encyclopedia, not to have some kind of survivalist contest. The standard offer may be the best way forward. Huon (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2018 (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.

.

If you want to be unblocked you'll need to address your repeated personal attacks and edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. My edit warring was out of (apparently failed) attempts to uphold WP:ONUS). As for the personal attacks, I felt bullied, and it was a way of expressing myself, and some were attacks that I didn't know were attacks. I promise never to do such a thing again.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 18:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the unblock template as described above. And please read WP:NOTTHEM. Best not to keep attacking other editors in your appeal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my interaction with this user, I am extremely skeptical of their ability to edit collaboratively. I find the whole "Some were attacks that I didn't know were attacks" very hard to believe. It sounds to me more like "I'll say anything to get unblocked so I can resume edit-warring". Khirurg (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I especially won't resume edit-warring after having been blocked for edit-warring. Also, I will change myself so as to collaborate more.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 20:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing "it is not like users can change." [2] and then immediately changing it to "I will change myself so as to collaborate more." is not helping your case. Meters (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'll make sure none of my future edits contain anything like this. I also want to participate in the discussion, as I've got something constructive coming.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 20:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i actually felt very emotionally decrepit and languid back then, in all honesty. Now I realize that denying it instead off going on just makes things worse.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 21:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also promise to not engage in vulgarity to hide my feelings of languor.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 21:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ask for an unblock, then do so properly, as has been explained to you. I think it would be waste of time, but continuing this thread is also a waste of time. I'm out. Meters (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I was definitely sincere with what I said. I'm weeping right now.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!)

Let's just say that all I want is the good of this encyclopedia and its scholarliness. Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 23:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, what do you think?Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 01:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Some were attacks that I didn't know were attacks" does not inspire confidence but another admin will look at your appeal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, is it okay to make another unblock appeal? Because I believe you may not have been fully familiar with the circumstances surrounding this situation.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 06:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can make further appeals but you may want to consider what Huon said. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huon, I'm ready.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 11:55, 14 April 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I know that it hasn't been six minths yet, but waiting for six months is not the point: the change is. I'm not going to excuse anything I did. I would just like to promise that I wouldn't violate any Wikipedia policy ever again, especially now that I learned not to violate any policy the hard way. And since blocks are supposed to be preventative, that would be a good reason to unblock me. Plus, I'm worried about people pretending to be professionals and disrupting articles severely in the process, and there are cases where I believe I am the only one who can fully spot the damage and fix it, that is another perfectly good reason.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 11:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but the bit about, "I'm worried about people pretending to be professionals and disrupting articles", convinces me you do not understand how to not edit disruptively. We do not edit based on our own expertise. We edit based on material from WP:reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking. When we disagree about content, we discuss our opposing views until we reach an agreement. Only you can edit some subjects correctly? Deary me, if you disagree with another person's edits, you discuss until you reach agreement. You must affirm understanding this, as a bare minimum, before I would consider unblocking you. Please read WP:BRD. Please explain what it means in your own words. As for the timer on the WP:standard offer, IMHO it should start over with the timestamp of this unblock request. My advice would be to wait till 6 months from now and then try again. Sorry, I cannot be more helpful. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dlohcierekim, you have completely and utterly misunderstood the meaning of what I said. I am not saying that people do not edit based on sources, I understand how to edit completely. I am referring to cases where people misunderstabd what a source says and make things like inaccurate maps based on their misunderstanding, and even then I would discuss with them Nothing personal, why are you taking this so personally?Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 03:42, 15 April 2018 (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.

"Plus, I'm worried about people pretending to be professionals and disrupting articles severely in the process, and there are cases where I believe I am the only one who can fully spot the damage and fix it" - I think you'll have to explain that. Why would no one else be able to spot the damage? On the other hand, the unblock request appears to not address the causes of your block at all beyond a vague promise to not "violate any Wikipedia policy ever again". If you found yourself in a similar situation again, how would your conduct differ? Huon (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huon, I'm referring to cases wherein people misunderstand the definitions of things like terminologies but think they understand them, and, given their mistaken impression, mess up a page. I have reverted edits like that before and I see one pop up again. Since I can't get people to undo serious errors I spot since that would be proxy editing, I have to be unblocked in order for me to deal with the situation. People wouldn't be able to spot the damage since people around that article don't know enough about it to say anything on it, so they just accept it. If by a similar situation you mean being tempted to do edit warring or any like violation, I simply would do away with the thought of violating any principle, and I would also do something constructive on other articles instead.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 12:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huon? I have responded to your commentAnu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 20:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your response and don't have any additional comments at this point. I generally don't review the same block more than once, so you'll have to wait for another administrator to review your request. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huon, User:NeilN, how do other admins see my accout unblock request?Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 02:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We go through the list of unblock requests.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Infantom, I have a good suggestion for the Western world article. I suggest you put the contributions of the Greeks and Romans unde rthe words" Hellenism" and " Roman cukture" like this : Hellenism (natural inquiry, formal realism in the arts, democracy) Roman culture (government, architecture, warfare) to make it clear that these are the contributions that expanded upon earlier Near Eastern forms, and not just Jewish and Greek religion, as the article is right now implying

Likewise I suggest you put (ethics, Western and modern concept of social justice, moral autonomy, monotheism) under Judaism. I also suggest that you put a note right after Roman culture that says "many primary sources, influenced by century-old Enlightenment currents of thought, celebrate Greece and Rome as the birthplaces of Western civilization, emphasizing the massive unparalleled impact of the Greeks and Romans, but also ignoring and taking for granted important historical nuances."

Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 22:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not get other editors in trouble by encouraging them to proxy edit for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 02:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Favonian, I'm afraid you and NeilN have mistakenly accused an innocent IP for being me. If you check my IP address, you will see that to be so.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 02:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, any thoughts about the IP? I can't have him blocked for being mistakenly identified as me, turning him off from Wikipedia.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 02:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't seem to be imitating me either. His edits are markedly different from mine, and he must have his own reasons for doing his edits.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 03:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Favonian, User:NeilN, what's the holdup?Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 03:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find your protestations less than convincing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, at least get a CHECKuser to see my IP addresses.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 04:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Checkusers don't match IPs with registered accounts and anyone who asks about this probably knows how easy it is to change IPs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can I convince you that I am truly not him? Aside from the fact that the edits he made are not the edits I wanted to make (see above section)Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 04:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really find it immensely disturbing that I have no way of proving to you that I am not the IP even I truly am not...Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 05:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huon, can I ask a question, just for clarification? How is WP:ONUS the "exact opposite" of what I tried to justify it with? Just want to know.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 05:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." - with edits such as this you were trying to edit-war disputed content into the article. Removing the disputed image might possibly have been argued to comply with WP:ONUS. Adding it, not so much. Huon (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]