User talk:GreatPersonLikeMe

July 2023

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to SIG MCX Spear, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Skynxnex (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to SIG MCX Spear, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, GreatPersonLikeMe, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

{{Unblock|user:GreatPersonLikeMe|I didn't makr any bad faith}} GreatPersonLikeMe (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I was in the same IP range. But I didn't violate any of the policies of Wikipedia. I just make some articles to be better facts for everyone using for gaining knowledge around the globe. I wasn't participated in making bad faith. So I hope Wikipedia administrators will take a deep look and consider about the decision. Thanks!

Decline reason:

One open unblock request at a time, please; you had two. This account is not directly blocked. If you are unable to edit, please exactly follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so. Yamla (talk) 11:25, 16 August 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.

I just want to contribute better human knowledge to the world. GreatPersonLikeMe (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block notices

As far as I know, non-admins shouldn't add block notices as you did here. Also the user is blocked indefinitely, not temporarily, and the blocking admin already had placed a notice. Skynxnex (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World War I

When you change a photo description, please make sure that it is actually correct. Your change at World War I failed that point. Please pay attention to that. The Banner talk 10:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The First World War (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The First World War (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 11:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WWII

I don't necessarily disagree that "lasting" is a better word for the first sentence of World War II, but where in the manual of style does it specify that "lasting" is preferred? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm totally agree with @GreatPersonLikeMe because he made a better stylish form to make the article more understandable by any new user. 14.176.190.102 (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But anyway, your opinion is also highly valued. Both the words of recent mades has a similar sense but I like better the version meticulously changed by him than User:The Banner. That is what I think for those contributions. I suppose either of you will reply to this in any time, but faster is definitely better. 14.176.190.102 (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GreatPersonLikeMe claims to have done this based on the Manual of Style. The ed17 is already asking for the relevant MOS. In fact, I failed to find that relevant MOS also. So at least the edit summary is incorrect. The Banner talk 15:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's very, very curious that a random IP editor has commented here but User:GreatPersonLikeMe hasn't. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More then likely account and IP are identical (see the talk page of Bedivere). That reinforces my doubt about WP:CIR of this user. The Banner talk 09:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Wikipedia, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bedivere (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To my opinion, he also lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia, conform WP:CIR. Page owning issues, inventing manuals of style, making superfluous edits etc. The Banner talk 18:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, they are inventing some ridiculous "rules". They even gave me a warning which is so funny I can't take it seriously! Bedivere (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World War II. 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. TylerBurden (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Hi. Regardless on your feelings of the edit in question or how minor it is, Wikipedia's consensus-based model means that you need to go to the article's talk page (in this case Talk:World War II) to discuss your proposed change. If you edit war again, you will be temporarily blocked from making further edits. Thanks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to Wikipedia. POV-pushing and edit warring is not the way forward. I want to point out that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. And that competence is required. The Banner talk 08:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GreatPersonLikeMe. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and 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 should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 08:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I won't sock puppet again. I promise! User:GreatPersonLikeMe 10:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We will need more than your promise; you will need to observe the standard offer process and refrain from editing under any account or IP for six months, to start to rebuild trust with you and show that you can abide by policies. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 13 September 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.

I am not the one to decide, but I noticed that it took you just two days to make a SECOND sockpuppet since your block for sockpuppetry. I think admins will be a bit cautious, as that sockpuppet is only blocked one week ago. The Banner talk 13:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get unblocked?

I won't sock puppet. I promise I will make more valuable contributions to Wikipedia. User:GreatPersonLikeMe 12:04, 2 November 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

above

Decline reason:

As stated above, you were given the standard offer, mean no edits of any kind for 6 months either IP or sock accounts. As you were socking as recently as September, I am going to say that you should not request an unblock until at least 6 months from today, which is May 2nd, 2024. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:58, 2 November 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.