User talk:Human like you

Hi Human like you! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to The New York Times. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. 2003:77:4F1C:E496:45D8:EFEE:624B:6634 (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Morphou Bay . Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 2003:77:4F1C:E496:45D8:EFEE:624B:6634 (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:The_New_York_Times. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.155.192 (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will not comment further on the baseless warnings of a stalker. -Human like you (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at The New York Times. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. The edit summary accuses another editor of being a stalker. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EricEnfermero: I suggest you check out the user's past movements and "contributions" before making judgment on me. Have you ever thought about WHY I might have made such a claim? -Human like you (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it and considered that. WP:NPA, the guideline on personal attacks, doesn't really draw any distinctions between justified and unjustified personal attacks, no matter how you may have been wronged. You've been provided with some links related to things like the Teahouse and dispute resolution procedures, so that would be the route to go rather than the name calling. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 2003:77:4F1D:B929:CC3B:3956:435B:2E58 (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2017 (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. Thank you. 2003:77:4F1F:A044:715C:EA84:913:75FC (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned per the outcome of this complaint. You may be blocked if you once again try to insert material sourced to dailysabah.com unless you get a prior consensus on a talk page. You might also consider asking at WP:RSN whether it is usable for these articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Persistent edit-warring behaviour, including removal of sourced material from articles with the spurious edit-summary of "POV pushing". Material in articles that you disagree with is not necessarily POV. When your edit is reverted, use the talk page. Also, poor behaviour on talk pages. Anonymous editors are editors as much as registered accounts. You do not have stalkers or followers; people are checking your edits purely because of your disruptive behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Human like you, if you continue this way admins will be sorely tempted to block your account. The choice is yours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continuing to edit disruptively by edit-warring to unclose a closed discussion, after a previous final warning. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs all available major independent news, focus with only news and no press releases, trivial announcements, interviews or any other similar.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tusaş Engine Industries and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 25 January 2017 (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. Thank you. 2003:77:4F1F:D925:28A8:F946:AC16:C8AA (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Deleted before as advertising and this is still too close to it because it mirrors what they would advertise to clients including the sources here being only announcements, listings and mentions; focus with major independent news in major news publications, not trade PR publications or similar.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tusaş Engine Industries and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tusaş Engine Industries. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for continuing to edit-war on multiple articles after your previous block for the same reason.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for evading your previous block with User:Constellation2023. Your next block is likely to be indefinite.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, I will not even go back to discussing why a two-week block was unwarranted. No, I did not edit war. Anyway, extending my block for a month is wrong because user Constellation2023 is another user at work. Yes, we share the same IP address at work. No we are not sockpuppets. I could ask all of my friends to contribute to Wikipedia and support my arguments in talk pages like some IP users do. But there is no need for this since Wikipedia is truely not that important and people have better things to do than argue over simple topics on talk pages. Please unblock my account and lift the unnecessary one month ban so I may continue adding to Wikipedia. Thank you. -Human like you (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the overlap and your admitted relationship, that is a clear violation of WP:MEAT. The block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2017 (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.

You have been blocked from editing indefinitely for evading your previous block with User:4world2read. As was mentioned above, your next block was likely to be indefinite, and so it is. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, it is now unlikely you will be unblocked, having used multiple sockpuppets to evade your block.   Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tusaş Engine Industries, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Antonioatrylia (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]