Mountain157

Hi Mountain157, I saw your additions you made for the Tartary wiki article, that was great. For some reason, someone has removed it all?? Do we know why? I'm the one who added that it was a country and cited it from encyclopedia britannica. What was the name of that book that you referenced your additions from again? it was on google.books I think.Thegman81 (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Yeah, if you look at the edit history of the page this other user deleted it and then filed ANI and Fringe Theory noticeboards against me because I am supposedly,"promoting conspiracy theories". You can see the talk page f of Tartary for more details of what happened. But anyways I used[[1]],[[2]],[[3]],[[4]],[[5]]. It is pretty obvious that Tartary existed based on all the sources that I had used and especially when that country is documented as having a flag, how can the existence of it be denied?You are more than welcome to edit Tartary and add back the information. I am done with this website. Full of toxic users vandalizing pages (Personal attack removed) and then getting away with it. Anyways, have a nice day and good luck. Mountain157 (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. MrClog (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Reminder

Hello Mountain157, may I please remind you that you are encouraged to share a statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mountain157. Regards, MrClog (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

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=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to unblock you if you demonstrate that you understand the problems with your editing so far and are willing to change. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

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).

Mountain157 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I admit that I engaged in sockpuppetry to avoid blocks. I want to be able to rejoin Wikipedia again and become a productive editor. At first, I did not have a proper understanding of Wikipedia, but now after seeing how other experienced editors work together to improve articles, I wish to do the same. Mountain157 (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I suggest you follow the advice in the standard offer. Go six months without any block evasion or sock puppetry, and we'll consider unblocking you. If you continue to flout the community's trust, you will likely be site banned per WP:3X, which means any articles you create will be deleted on the spot, and any edits you make will be reverted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

• Given your behavior, including your latest discovered sock that I blocked yesterday, you'd be lucky if anyone considered your unblock request in a year.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

Mountain157 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I read the standard offer. However, it also mentions that The six-month threshold can be adjustable under special circumstances. If an editor shows an unusually good insight into the circumstances that led to the block, and sets out a credible proposal for how they will deal with those issues in future, then a return might be considered sooner.I have explained the reasoning for why I was blocked in my previous request, but if need be I can go into more of the specific circumstances below. Mountain157 (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No. You worked hard to destroy our trust in you. You can start to earn it back by following WP:SO. You are eligible to apply under WP:SO no sooner than Thursday, December 26, 2019. Yamla (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Your draft article, Draft:Tartarian language

Hello, Mountain157. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tartarian language".

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 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

Mountain157 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to apply for the Standard Offer since I have passed the date December 26 2019.

Decline reason:

Note that per the standard offer, "This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and administrators are not forced to unblock you, especially if you have not provided any reason why you should be unblocked other than your avoidance of Wikipedia for six months. You should still provide a clear reason why you should be unblocked." You still need to indicate that you understand what you did wrong and won't do it again, and describe what constructive contributions you will make. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

@331dot: I accept that whatever actions I did were wrong. I will never do it again. I believe that I should be unblocked because I have alot to offer. Whenever I am viewing certain Wikipedia articles that I feel are lacking some information or need to be corrected, I feel sad that I can't do anything because I am blocked. Mountain157 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft a reasonable unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You state "I accept that whatever actions I did were wrong". If you are unable to articulate what exactly it is that you did wrong, we can't be assured that you will not repeat the offending behavior. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: The actions I did that were wrong is Sockpuppetry/Block Evasion. Mountain157 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

As this is a checkuser block, only a checkuser can authorize its removal. I suggest that you do as Yamla suggests and review WP:GAB carefully so that you can write the best unblock request you can. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

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).

Mountain157 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am appealing that the block on my account should be removed. I accept the fact that I engaged in Sockpuppetry/Block Evasion which is a big violation of the rules of Wikipedia. I will never engage in that kind of behavior again. Whenever I am on Wikipedia, I see so many different articles that may need some work or additional information but I feel sad as I am not able to edit it. In the time that I have been blocked, I have been able to read all of Wikipedia's rules more clearly as well as see how other Editors on Wikipedia improve articles so that I can learn how to better the Project. I want to be able to move past this and show the potential that I have to offer. Mountain157 (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

unblock discussion

Hello, it's been a while. As this is a checkuser block, only a checkuser may unblock.

• Assuming you will be unblocked, please discuss your edits to to pages under the India, Pakistan, Afghanistan umbrella. Tell us what you would do differently.
• Please discuss the policy on WP:edit warring and how it relates to your editing then and in the future.
• Please relate WP:BRD to your editing then and in the future.
• Please discuss the WP:no personal attacks policy and how it relates to your editing then and in the future.
• You see much room for improvement in some Wikipedia articles. Please give examples of changes you would make.
• Please relate the following statement to the changes you would make-- "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking."

That's enough for now.-- Deepfriedokra 02:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Permalink to relevant arbitration enforcement thread.-- Deepfriedokra 02:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Pemalink to relevant fringe theory noticeboard-- Deepfriedokra 02:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1004#Admin:Black Kite reported by Mountain157-- Deepfriedokra 02:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Should I propose the changes right here on my talkpage? Mountain157 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: What I would do differently for India,Pakistan,Afghanistan topics is refrain from aggressively editing. I will do compromises with the editors that I might have disputes with or ask another experienced editor for input.

• The policy on Edit-Warring states that an editor should not revert more than 3 times in one day for an article. Editors may also be blocked if they try to game the system. Early on when I first started editing Wikipedia, I was engaged in Edit-Warring to "force my edits through", for which I was blocked for. In the future I will make sure that edit-warring does not occur and that I discuss things in the talkpage.

• As for BRD, I think it kind of ties in with what I answered above.

• For the No Personal Attacks Policy, I will make sure to follow the policy and stick to the content rather than focusing on the editor.

• I see alot of room for improvements in Wikipedia articles. For instance as I have mentioned before, even if I am browsing over regular articles(ones that are not highly contested), and I end up seeing a typo or grammar error, I am not able to fix it due to the fact that I am currently blocked. If unblocked, even during random Wikipedia browsing, I can fix any error in the words or grammar.Mountain157 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)