User talk:Amoakgusd

August 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Spf121188. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Hermann Göring 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. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 19:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2023[edit]

You made a pretty dramatic edit to the short description of the country Scotland. If you want to do something like that, you should get a consensus on the article’s talk page first, as a lot of thought is put into making sure short descriptions are worded accurately. Camholl (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through your edit history, I’ve found a number of subtle, and unsourced edits, including one to the short description of Scottish parliament. I am going to revert these. In future, try to make sure your edits are factually correct and constructive. If you do not, you could be issued a ban. Camholl (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Scotland, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The continual adding of your edit w/o discussion/consensus, per WP:BRD, is not constructive. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Scotland. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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 noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Do you think you're invisible? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amoakgusd! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amoakgusd! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Scotland several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Scotland, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scotland. 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. Favonian (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Scotland. 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 ~~~~}}. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Scotland. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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 noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You've already been warned about your unexplained slow warring at Scotland and you're doing the same at other articles. Make your case at the talk pages and only make the edits again if you gain consensus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2023 (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:Amoakgusd reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: ). Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get why I was blocked from editing for 48 hours when I was trying to contribute to the page. I am correcting the page's introduction. Scotland is as much as a nation as England & Wales is and as such I was changing the page's introduction to match the other two countries. Amoakgusd (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2023 (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:Amoakgusd reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: ). Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal[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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, was supposedly blocked until the 22nd of September 2023 which is ridiculous as I've only corrected Scotland's introduction page, Matt Lunker has not made any attempt to initiate a discussion about this, Scotland is as much of a country within the United Kingdom as England and Wales are. Matt could've made an attempt to discuss this in a civil manner but it appears that he would rather accuse people of edit warring in order to get his way on the Scotland page.Amoakgusd (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a puzzling request as you are not presently blocked and nothing in your block log shows that a block of that length has ever been imposed (Is there something you're not telling us here that you really should be?). In any event, it is also an ironic request as I am about to block you again for the continued slow-mo edit warring, sitewide again since Scotland is not the only article you seem to keep getting reverted on.

This request also raises an issue that I will save you some time and address before you make your next unblock request: It is not solely Mutt's responsibility to reach out to you just because he keeps reverting and warning you. You seem to have a working keyboard and a native-level command of English—is there some other reason you can't reach out to him? It takes two people to edit war, after all.

It seems to me (and would seem that way to a lot of other editors, in fact) that at any point after Lunker gave you one of those many warnings above (which to most of us do count as an effort to reach out, however irksome you may find them), you could have initiated the discussion you seem to have indicated you want in response, and then you might not have ever been blocked or blocked again (In fact, in this context I should note, as AP 499D25 did in the ANEW report that led me here (again), that your only edit to this talk page before this request was to protest my recent block). — Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2023 (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.

Amoakgusd (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking me from replying to your reasoning for declining my appeal just because you want to make your virtual job easier. No wonder wiki admins have such a bad rep for shit like this, can't say i’m flattered. Amoakgusd (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]