User talk:J-E-N-O-V-A

Concession

I do however agree with my banning from editting. Some of edits were bizarre and ill informed. However, it does not allow me to grow and improve as an edittor, so it is sad.

The current state of Wikipedia

1) Certain famous people must be referred to in ways that agree with their personal wishes, despite the way they wish to be referred disagreeing with objective reality. Language thus is a tool of enforcing popular dogmas rather than in describing people or things accurately.

2) Old incidents of political violence, and their perpetrators, can be assigned political motives that are not accurate to the time, but instead allow a modern political narrative to be pushed.

3) It is wrong to talk about the relevant subject on their talk pages. You must instead talk about the content that is provided, not for example any possible future content or the truth of the matter. The narrative being pushed then is the only acceptable thing to be critiqued, no future narrative.

4) Pages on specific people can be used as weapons to target people considered undesirable or with traits that are popularly considered undesirable.

5) Paid articles produced by certain corporate organisations can be used as citations and sources, and if anyone wishes to verify them or find out their content, they must pay that specific organisation the money to see their article.

Have fun with your encyclopedia!

J-E-N-O-V-A (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, J-E-N-O-V-A, 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:

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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! – Gilliam (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Your recent editing history at Oklahoma City bombing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Greyjoy^talk 03:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hello, I'm Felida97. An edit you recently made to Helen Mirren seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. ... discospinster _talk 17:07, 9 September 2022 (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).

J-E-N-O-V-A (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

-or is a male suffix, -ess is the female equivalent. it derives from a gendered language that is an ancestor of english. language changes organically, not to fit suicidal political agendasJ-E-N-O-V-A (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's clear from examining your edits and this request that the reason for the block is correct. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 9 September 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.

-

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).

J-E-N-O-V-A (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not intend to edit many wikipedia pages, other than their talk pages to ask questions about the topic. I understand why you blocked me, because I was repeatedly editting something I disagreed with, I will not do this in the future and will save my questions for talk pages. I have not challenged this ban in any way until now because I wish to ask questions on topics (such as the topic of Quantum Darwinism), so I humbly request that you reenable this account and for forgiveness on my conduct. J-E-N-O-V-A (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you have no plans to edit (apart from inappropriately, as described here), there's no reason to lift this block. Yamla (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2024 (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.

Someone else will review your request, but talk pages are not for merely asking questions about the topic, so you won't be unblocked to do that. Talk pages are for discussion about edits to the associated article. 331dot (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks, noted. i will not use the talk page as a forum for discussing the topic. i will rarely edit if at all. but i would like to have this freedom back anyway if possible J-E-N-O-V-A (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]