User talk:Godofwarfan333

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Godofwarfan69420, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Timothytyy (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 US gubernatorial elections[edit]

Howdy. Why did you change the gov seats won in the infobox, to incorrect numbers? Only 48 of the 50 states have been called & so far, that gives Republicans 25 & Democrats 23. Alaska & Arizona are still not called. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wait but.....republicans lost two seats so far (Massachusetts and maryland) and gained maryland....that's a net gain of 1 for dems and a net loss of 1 for republicans??? Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Edit war disclaimer[edit]

You seem to be new to Wikipedia, so after seeing your edits on Ron DeSantis, I want to make sure you know the rules regarding edit wars. When your edits are reverted, it is typically your responsibility to go to the talk page, per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 05:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

huh? no? it wasn't an edit war? it was simply a misunderstanding lol what even. can you atleast inquire before making sudden decisions. he thinks that a decrease of 3 should be indicated, I just thought that as they haven't actually lost 3 races, that decrease should not be written till the final counting is over? what's the issue? Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to edit war in defiance of WP:ONUS: [1]. Edit warring in violation of WP:ONUS is super disruptive on a BLP as high-profile as this one. Generalrelative (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you're the one edit warring. that paragraph has been in existence on the lede for a couple of days now and has also been agreed to by consensus. which you can see here:Talk:Ron DeSantis#covid in lede read the last couple of entries

I'm reverting the edit. if you want to talk about it and discuss, sure, go ahead, but it's quiet obvious your only goal rn is to see it reverted no matter what without a discussion in good faith. I'm trying my best to have an updated page which goes best in line with the sentiment of the moment as well as something which updates the lede well enough for a full term worth of governing. Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This is especially important in the case of WP:BLPs, where sourcing concerns are taken especially seriously. Note that I have begun a discussion thread on the matter at the article talk page. I won't comment on your statement with regard to what you imagine my "only goal" is other than to remind you that WP:ASPERSIONS are likewise sanctionable behavior. Generalrelative (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the onus is on me, and I've gained consensus as you can clearly see on the talk page. don't revert it before you're done discussing it now Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read what consensus means. Generalrelative (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This policy describes how consensus is understood on Wikipedia, how to determine whether it has been achieved (and how to proceed if it has not), and describes exceptions to the principle that all decisions are made by consensus."

we incorporated all our concerns, by removing the vindicated statement as existed previously, by shortening the two separate sections of the lede into a compact, better sourced one. Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. Generalrelative (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t see it there Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:God of War Ragnarök.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:God of War Ragnarök.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username is a clear violation of Wikipedia's username policy – it is obviously offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, disruptive, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page here: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}}

Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing offensive or profane in my username lmao what? You’re in big trouble buddy. You just blocked someone for the most unreasonable reason. Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I'm in an odd position because I think there's plenty of evidence in my 3RRN report that this user needs at least a brief block to help them understand that their behavior will not be tolerated here. However I can 't say that I agree with your rationale for the indef. Is there a strong precedent for considering "420" and "69" grossly offensive? Generalrelative (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is also a strong precedent for seeing those strings as indicating an intent to edit disruptively ... when I regularly patrolled UAA, I and others routinely blocked editors with those strings in their usernames. I grant that this user has not done so intentionally, it would seem, but those strings also negatively impact the way a user is seen by others to the detriment of the good faith that is basically, as I recall another admin once saying, the grease in Wikipedia's gears. So changing it is strongly recommended.

All username-only blocks (and for now I consider this block to be one) are indef until the user gets the name changed, because a username violation is continuing. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is such poor reasoning lmaooo what just because a few others have edited disruptively, you assume I'd do the same and block away? what kinda weird bias is that bruh. Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts with usernames that violate the username policy are blocked until they are changed. Honestly you should have been blocked for this username as soon as you created the account. I'm surprised you weren't. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i'd like to say a lot about and to you, but i'm holding my tongue because the best option here is de-escalation Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'brief block' for what, making constructive edits all over wikipedia? Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a good-faith question, there is a very simple answer: go read WP:3RR and then compare with the behavior you see reported here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Godofwarfan69420 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Blocked indefinitely for_username). While I don't agree with Daniel Case's tone below, and I'm not 100% convinced about their rationale for giving you an indef based on your username, failure to WP:LISTEN when it comes to basic behavioral policy like 3RR will certainly result in an indefinite block sooner than later. And there isn't a single experienced user on Wikipedia who would argue that your behavior over the past couple days, as reported at 3RRN, isn't grounds for some kind of sanction. Generalrelative (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"There is absolutely nothing offensive or profane in my username lmao what?" Really? A widely-understood reference to a sex position and another number similarly associated with marijuana use? I grant that the latter isn't "profane" and probably not offensive to many people here per se, but ... per WP:DISRUPTNAME, part of the username policy linked from the block notice above, which you have by now certainly had sufficient liberty to peruse, "[u]sernames that show or imply the intent to vandalize, disrupt, or engage in bad-faith edits or behaviors that are clearly not intended to help build, expand, or grow the encyclopedia in a positive or collaborative manner."

As I have explained below to Generalrelative, not only have many people who used "69" or "420" in their usernames shown enough of a tendency to edit disruptively or just generally that they're not here to build an encyclopedia as for us to block those usernames on sight no matter how constructively they have thitherto edited, we have also found we cannot allow those usernames as the stigma associated with them is such that other users have a difficult time extending them the assumption of good faith, impairing the ability of editors to work effectively together upon which Wikipedia depends greatly.

So the foundation for this block is far from "the most unreasonable reason". It is fully justified and consistent with core Wikipedia policy.

"You’re in big trouble buddy." ... Facepalm(Redacted)

I would further counsel you to keep the attitude in your locker. This response on your part is not going to help your case for being unblocked, and to make matters worse, if it keeps up take it into consideration that I or any other admin has the authority to revoke your access to this page. You would still have the ability to make private unblock requests, but that will be less likely to meet with approval.

Have a nice day. Daniel Case (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the remarks I have redacted above. I made them at a time when I was awaiting dinner and had an urgent errand to complete afterwards, so I let myself get carried away by my own cleverness. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

glad to know we sorted this out in a respectful manner. 🤝 Godofwarfan333 (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"he complaints of an eight-day-old account validly blocked will amount to nothing against that (And spare me the inevitable followup that if I knew who your daddy is I would not be so sure of myself. I don't know, nor frankly would I care, who sired you; I'd like to think he would not appreciate you throwing his name or perceived influence around so cavalierly. And even if he did come riding to your rescue, it would mean nothing here)."

for an admin who's been around for a decade, you're rather thin-skinned, and more importantly, extremely immature. the fact that you had to revert to ad hominems tells a lot about you. 69420 is a bunch of numbers, which is mildly amusing at best. 'explicit', your immaturity in this situation has been laughable. rather than tell me than this name is now allowed or whatever, you straight up block me? listen kid, I get it, you think being a wikipedia admin is some sort of weird power trip which allows you to boss around and do whatever you want, but you look extremely childish in your actions because of it. Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to note above that "420" is also sometimes associated with white supremacists since Hitler was born April 20. That's another reason for blocking those usernames on sight. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i assure you with 100% confidence, absolutely no one ever except you thinks that. why do i say this you may ask? because the 420 is ALWAYS associated with the weed april 20th thing. white supremacists are too stupid to know what hitler's bday was, and a quick google shows the ADL has not a single article or mention of 420 with hitler so.... but wtv, i'm requesting a username change now anyway Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"white supremacists are too stupid to know what hitler's bday was" No they're not.

BTW, we also blocked this person indefinitely for a username that also had "420" and "69" with no other issues. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

damn, that's actually surprising. would be better if the white supremacists were instead celebrating 430 Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

happy? I requested a username change. I'm assuming that's enough for you🙄 Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That new name would be fine, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you also might want to consider putting in a usurpation request for User:Godofwarfan; that account hasn't been used since it was created in 2010. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the suggestion, but i'd like to keep the omegas as they're a cool symbol Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... actually, it turns out, you'd need more time editing before being allowed to usurp, so it works out. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cool Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so what now? what am i supposed to be doing after the name change request??? Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generalrelative has asked that I revert my closure of his ANEW report, which I will, and let some other admin review it. You can go back to editing, and all I would ask is that you be less combative. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ye, i apologize for any offense caused, i was just rather miffed by the fact i got perma blocked Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

new username[edit]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Godofwarfan333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

ΩGodofwarfanΩ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

blocked indefinitely for having a bunch of numbers by some guy called Daniel Case who doesn't even consider informing me about changing my name before he abusing the block button Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The system does not like the omega letters and doesn't want to process the username change. Could you choose something without them?(perhaps "Godofwaromega" would be okay) 331dot (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bruh. ok fine I'll choose something else

Note to any reviewing bureaucrat: Go ahead and unblock after changing this; I'm OK with it. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cool Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

uhhh i'm still blocked, any suggestions? Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

new username[edit]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Godofwarfan333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Godofwarfan333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

previous username got rejected. Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have renamed and unblocked your account. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm LilianaUwU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

huh what? i was replying to someone who commented about me in the edit war area???? what exactly is supposed to be constructive about me thanking him? Godofwarfan333 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an error. I've restored the comments: [2]. Just FYI, I'm not a "him". Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2022 FIFA World Cup have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2022 FIFA World Cup. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hi! Just a note on here that all of the World Cup stadiums that you have uploaded to Commons are both not your own work, and copyrighted. Please don't upload materials suggesting that you own the copyright to them when you do not. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cool, thanks for the headsup Godofwarfan333 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:Godofwarfan333 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: ). Thank you. Spike 'em (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2022 FIFA World Cup. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Amakuru (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what? I'm reverting their unconstructive edits and you block me? he literally ABUSED ME. wth Godofwarfan333 (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Strange World (film), 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. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 16:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cool, go check back now Godofwarfan333 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you assume ownership of articles, as you did at 2022 FIFA World Cup. Your editing history, inability to follow direction and general civility has been questioned by many now. This is the last warning you will get. Wikipedia is written from both a neutral point of view and you seem unable to follow WP:BRD. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me man[edit]

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).

Godofwarfan333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edits have consistently been in good faith. However, those of the other accounts have consistently shown a disregard for consensus, DESPITE THE FACT I ASKED FOR CONSENSUS. he even called me an 'utter imbecile'. it's quite sad that Amakuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has blocked me without investigating what happened. Godofwarfan333 (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of that matters at all in regards to this block; edit warring is not tolerated. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:42, 24 November 2022 (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.

Godofwarfan333 (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware, you have shown no understanding of why you were blocked, nor shown competency on how you would respect Wikipedia's rules going forward, so you are much more likely to get a longer term block than have it removed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I literally realised what the issue with what I was doing was and I requested him to stop reverting so that we could talk it out. I MESSAGED HIM ON HIS TALK PAGE. he ignored me, and then went on to say 'because I think it's better'. How am I the villain here? he even abused me and called me an 'utter imbecile'. a flagrant violation of WP:PA, and yet, I'm the villain? Godofwarfan333 (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

uhh...how have I not shown competence? I was constantly requesting for a cease to the edits and called for utilisation of the talk page. I don't engage in edit wars since my previous errors and literally tried to bring an end to it. he just had the quicker trigger finger as he complained quicker. he faced no penalty for so blatantly insulting a fellow editor OR for also engaging in an edit war. but ok. guess all I can do is learn Godofwarfan333 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Realising the issue" would mean that you stopped reverting but you didn't, you kept right on edit warring, several times more than SpikeEm, thus breaking WP:3RR, which they did not. And you were also clearly aware of Wikipedia's policy in this area, as you mentioned "three reverts" yourself in one of your edit summaries, and were also warned about edit warring above. SpikeEm did do personally attack you, and I've given them a final warning for that, but it's your own conduct that we're examining here, and you've shown no indication yet of understanding this and assuring us that it won't happen again. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fairs, I agree, I should have immediately stopped reverting and talked to him solely on the talk page, but your claim is wrong. he DID in fact break Wikipedia:3RR. you can see the history of the article and see that not only did he revert thrice, he also used un-wikipedia-like language while doing so. While I understand that the best course of action to deal with edit warriors like him is staying away, I've been trying to make the World Cup article as high-quality as possible for over a week, constantly making edits, improving it here and there, learning my lesson when my edits get reverted for not following freedom of panorama etc. however, this used popped out of nowhere and his first action was to revert edits, followed by using abusive language, followed by blatantly mentioning 'Because I think it's better' violating any norms of consensus, and ignoring my requests for a talk page dialogue. the fact that he gets away with it and faces absolutely no consequence for abusing me, breaking Wikipedia:3RR, and much more, is quite a sad course of events.

again, I apologise for what is essentially edit-warring myself. However, my intention (although clearly the means to achieve it weren't wiki-legal) was acting in good faith, whilst his wasn't.

Anyway, guess it is what it is. One can only learn.

Cheers Godofwarfan333 (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you were acting in good faith. It's totally unclear any of the others weren't. And which editor among the many there, besides you, violated WP:3RR by making more than three reverts in 24 hours? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wait I'll send a link to a photo that shows they were outright disregarding any norm of consensus or violating any modicum of respect.:

https://imgur.com/a/6q22fgk

proof that they've clearly been edit warring (both violatedWikipedia:3RR).

https://imgur.com/a/6q22fgk

not only was he clearly abusive here. he also shunned all attempts by me to reach out and reach consensus.

So in conclusion, it's quite obvious that both of them have been reverting 3 or more times in the past 24 hours. In addition, they also refuse to reason in any shape, way or form. And I got made out to be the villain. Unfair. But it is what it is ig Godofwarfan333 (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Between the two of them, yes. But 3RR applies to individual's actions; a violation of 3RR means one editor has reverted more than three times on one article. Which you did; which none of them did. That imgur link is hardly proof of anything other than your accusation of edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly abusive"? He called you an utter imbecile, true, but you called his edits "bizarre", you patronisingly referred to him as "kiddo", and your tone was generally bad. Give it a rest. – Pee Jay 15:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lmfao so now kiddo is supposed to be equivalent to utter imbecile ahahaha. sure bruh, whatever lets you sleep at night. you're lucky I didn't snitch on you because you broke 3RR btw. so watch yourself next time Godofwarfan333 (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have a terrible attitude. No desire to work with people here at all. That's been clear to me from day 1 seeing you edit. – Pee Jay 18:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lad I specifically requested that the both of you try to communicate in the talk section of the page before making edits. your reply was that 'you thought it was better'. stop the abject hypocrisy and realise that your behaviour is not wikipedia like, but more of the sort that belongs on a shithole like reddit. if you want respect, you communicate and work together. you've rejected all my treaties to do so. do not turn back and blame my hostility on me without noticing your actions first.

cheerio Godofwarfan333 (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a very clear warning earlier in this thread. Being antagonistic and unwilling to be civil will not end well. Please desist. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wth are you talking about, I desisted and didn't reply for the past 3 days, and this user PeeJay, who broke the rules btw but didn't receive any flack for it btw, dug up an old argument and messaged me needlessly. stop constantly blaming me man wth. Godofwarfan333 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding non-free images to the World Cup article[edit]

These images of stadiums will not be suitable under NfCC for the World Cup article. We aren't making any critical commentary on these items. They might be suitable for the individual articles for the stadiums, but they aren't suitable for the World Cup article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFTABLE is pretty clear about this. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 03:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

alright if you say so Godofwarfan333 (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like you didn't know this, as it's been explained to you at length what you would need to do to add images to the event. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I literally mentioned that they were non free and gave all the appropriate links etc. that was always my understanding of what was required. apparently not cuz now you're saying add nothing Godofwarfan333 (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is new. You could just read WP:NFC. Granted, Wikipedia's non-free content policy is complex, but that's because we're making specific allowance to violate copyright despite Wikipedia being a free-license encyclopedia. It's strict by design. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Al Bayt Stadium.png[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Al Bayt Stadium.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

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 deleted 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. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Stadium974 Qatar.png[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Stadium974 Qatar.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement of https://www.fifa.com/fifaplus/en/articles/stadium-974. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 deleted 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. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've literally given full credit and stated that it's not my work and added all sorts of information Godofwarfan333 (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar does not allow freedom of panorama, which means that use of the image must be for discussion of the image itself (see WP:NFC#UUI). Otherwise, it is a violation of copyright unless you personally hold the copyright or can release the image from copyright on FIFA's behalf. Just giving credit is insufficient if our rules disallow use of the content. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Al Janoub Stadium.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Al Janoub Stadium.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 23:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Khalifa internation stadium.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Khalifa internation stadium.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 23:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lusail Stadium.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lusail Stadium.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 23:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Godofwarfan333, copyvios, and civility. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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 here. Thank you. Seasider53 (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ahmad Bin Ali Stadium.jpeg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Ahmad Bin Ali Stadium.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

File:Education City Stadium.png

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ahmad Bin Ali Stadium.jpeg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Ahmad Bin Ali Stadium.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

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 deleted 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. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 01:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Education City Stadium.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Education City Stadium.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 01:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]