User talk:Lycoperdon

November 2015[edit]

You have violated the three-revert rule on Yemeni Civil War (2015). Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. FrankieL1985 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you get reverted, please use the talk page rather than reverting again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. FrankieL1985 (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Yemeni Civil War (2015), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. FrankieL1985 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FrankieL1985, this is a content dispute, not vandalism. I strongly suggest you refrain from misusing warning templates. Lycoperdon, you need to use the article's talk page to make the points you made on my talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Lycoperdon, 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 take 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.

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! FrankieL1985 (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Lycoperdon, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to War in Afghanistan (2015–present) has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016[edit]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to International sanctions during the Ukrainian crisis. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I admit of using a second account, I fully understand my guilt in this action and I've never tried in any way to avoid it, never used any proxy servers or similar loopholes to avoid being caught or something, however I believe I should be unblocked not because I did nothing wrong, ofcourse I did. However I believe that many articles in wikipedia are inherently biased, due to respective persons writing them and the way they interpret history/recent events, this is particularly apparent in the case of Poeticbent, his edit history and profile page clearly reflects that while he has greatly contributed to wikipedia, his contributions were tainted by obvious russophobia and polish nationalism which does not allow him to neutraly comment on certain events. I believe all I was doing is simply protecting the more vulnerable side in english wikipedia, it is the right thing to do because if there would be no more people like me, the evaluation of events in wikipedia would be incredibly biased. In my opinion the cause of this ban is not because of my intent to disrupt wikipedia, but because of passionate hatred of Poeticbent against me to the point where he has wasted his own personal time to collect evidence in order to humiliate me as personality and throw mud on every edit i've ever done, even though only few ones which were directed personally against him. I agree to concede and not participate in deliberate reversion of his reverts of my edits, however I cannot promise entire abscence of any action in the face of obvious lie, as in the case in 2015 where FrankieL1985 repeatedly tried to slander Russia and DPRK as a participants of Yemeni Civil War 2015-present with absolutely no proofs and repeatedly threatened me personally with bans, simply because I haven't supported his ridiculous approach. I believe in cases like those I should have a right to interfere, because it is my duty as a civilian to combat disinformation and slander. Also I reject the claim of Poeticbent that the purpose of my account was solely for edit warring, most of my edits on this account have contributed to wikipedia as a whole, so I see no point in this argument with him that I should be blocked, ignoring all the input I have made to wikipedia, just because of a little edit war against him, as I have stated before I fully understand that my actions were unacceptable, however I am no AI or sometihng, I have emotions too and when I see horribly biased statements which arent compatible with wikipedias NPOV, I must take action and edit them, I understand sometimes I went too far and became biased myself, however now I am as strong as ever in my resolve to support the more vulnerable side of the argument and as we know in english wikipedia it will NEVER be Poland, UK or US, it will most likely be countries which don't have too good relations with them such as Russia or DPRK and also movements which are absolutely despised by them such as Yemeni revolutionary comitees, hezbollah, PKK and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Even if after throughout consideration, you, whoever is going to read this, going to take decision to not unblock me, please, atleast make sure such content as was written by Poeticbent are investigated and edited/removed where it clearly isn't unbiased and may offend some people. Lycoperdon (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'd just cut-and-paste Poeticbent's comment below, but enough is enough. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:36, 6 July 2016 (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 are blocked because of what you did, not because of what others did. A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism. Unblock requests that contain personal attacks or incivility against others will be declined and may lead to being blocked from your talk page. (end of quote) Poeticbent talk 19:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are very persistent in keeping me blocked, aren't you? gathering all that evidence and everything and not persuading whoever will review my unblock request to keep me blocked. I understand your passionate political motives to prevent anyone like myself from ever editing. Please stop making threats against me about being blocked from my talk page or something, lets be honest, I understand this my comment may lesser or absolutely negate my chances of being unblocked, but I believe administrators should inspect your previous history of repeated reverts and edit wars with others, I guess I am relatively new on wikipedia in comparison to you and do not understand all the rules too well as you do, but it is obvious that you often abuse them to target your political opponents. Lycoperdon (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lycoperdon. I reviewed your unblock request before Poeticbent posted here, and would have declined as well. The part that's not about Poeticbent states "I admit of using a second account, I fully understand my guilt in this action and I've never tried in any way to avoid it, never used any proxy servers or similar loopholes to avoid being caught or something, however I believe I should be unblocked not because I did nothing wrong, ofcourse I did", which does not actually give a reason why you should be unblocked but only states that you did something wrong and knew it was wrong when you did it. I encourage you to post another unblock request, stating what you will do differently in the future. Your block is a checkuser block, which means only a checkuser can unblock you, but other patrolling admins are free to assess and offer recommendations. You might like to read the guide to appealing blocks. — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]