User talk:Ultrabomb
February 2016
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Marat Safin has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Marat Safin was changed by Ultrabomb (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.957043 on 2016-02-10T04:22:59+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dinara Safina. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
- If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- 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 place
{{Help me}}on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
Ultrabomb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I want make the Wikipedia pages "Ashkenazi Jews" and "Khazar Hypothesis of Ashkenazi Ancestry" neutral Ultrabomb (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This has already been answered below, and I agree that the answer is no. You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and it is unlikely that you will be unblocked until you address the reason for your block. Continuing to request unblock without addressing the underlying issues will likely result in you losing access to your talkpage. SQLQuery me! 04:58, 20 April 2017 (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.
- The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Dinara Safina was changed by Ultrabomb (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.953214 on 2016-02-10T04:27:56+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Elena Dementieva, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Elena Dementieva was changed by Ultrabomb (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.91199 on 2016-02-10T19:30:35+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Ultrabomb, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Ultrabomb! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 17:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
February 2017
[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia. Shrike (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Formal mediation has been requested
[edit]The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "The Khazar Hypothesis". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 March 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 03:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
[edit]The request for formal mediation concerning The Khazar Hypothesis, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
February 2017
[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 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 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. Shrike (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Ashkenazi Jews, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Justeditingtoday (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)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:Ultrabomb reported by User:Shrike (Result: ). Thank you. Shrike (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
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:Ultrabomb reported by User:Shrike (Result: ). Thank you. Shrike (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
[edit]
Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. I noticed that in this edit to Ashkenazi Jews, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ashkenazi Jews. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- 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; 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. Sundayclose (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ashkenazi Jews. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- 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; 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. Sundayclose (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Do you understand that you have already violated enough policies to get an immediate block? And your next block is likely to be indefinite given your previous blocks and inappropriate behavior. What's the point of continuing this if a block could very likely prevent you from editing at all? Sundayclose (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Sundayclose, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sundayclose (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
ANI
[edit] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sundayclose (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN talk to me 21:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)- Hi Ultrabomb. I saw the ANI thread and noticed that NeilN has already blocked you, which I entirely agree with. But I wanted to add a personal note that I hope you will use your enforced wikibreak to reflect on what you want to accomplish here. You have been blocked three times now in a relatively short period of time, for essentially the same sort of disruptive behavior. Unless you are planning on leaving the project I would strongly encourage you to make some changes in direction, because right now you are in the express lane heading for the exit marked "Indefinite Block." I'm not trying to pile on here. Just offering some friendly advice. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Ultrabomb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I've been following the three revert rule. I've submitted a request for mediation. I've used the talk page to explain my position. I'm right! == Ultrabomb (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
People are being very nice to you, actually; I'd have blocked you immediately just for your vile edits on another volunteer's talk page. As another user advised above, it would be a good idea to reconsider your approach to Wikipedia; this one isn't working. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 05:23, 8 March 2017 (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.
I've been following the three revert rule. Furthermore, the edits I've been making to the articles "Ashkenazi Jews" and "Khazar Hypothesis of Ashkenazi Jewish Ancestry" are right. There are genetic studies whose results support the Khazar hypothesis. Whoever has been reverting my edits wants to keep mention of them off of Wikipedia because they contradict their position. The ancestry of the Ashkenazi Jews is a political issue. But, politics and science don't mix. Additionally, saying that the Khazar hypothesis is associated with anti-semitism is an attempt to discredit it by associating it with something bad. It's like creationists arguing that the Nazis believed in evolution. I've submitted a request for mediation, which was rejected. I've used the talk pages to explain my position and whoever's been reverting my edits has persisted. What else can I do, let these politically motivated reverts stand? Is it right that I should have to do that? Why should I be the one blocked? Why not block whoever's been reverting my edits?
Ultrabomb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I've been following the three revert rule. I've submitted a request for mediation. I've used the talk pages to explain my positions. I'm right!Ultrabomb (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This request does not address your edits like this one. Max Semenik (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2017 (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.
I've been following the three revert rule. Furthermore, the edits I've been making to the articles "Ashkenazi Jews" and "Khazar Hypothesis of Ashkenazi Jewish Ancestry" are right. There are genetic studies whose results support the Khazar hypothesis. Whoever has been reverting my edits wants to keep mention of them off of Wikipedia because they contradict their position. The ancestry of the Ashkenazi Jews is a political issue. But, politics and science don't mix. Additionally, saying that the Khazar hypothesis is associated with anti-semitism is an attempt to discredit it by associating it with something bad. It's like creationists arguing that the Nazis believed in evolution. I've submitted a request for mediation, which was rejected. I've used the talk pages to explain my positions and whoever's been reverting my edits has persisted. What else can I do, let these politically motivated reverts stand? Is it right that I should have to do that? Why should I be the one blocked? Why not block whoever's been reverting my edits? I noticed that jpgordon didn't address any of the arguments I made. He did accuse me of making vile edits to a volunteer's talk page. Number one, I made one edit to Sundayclose's talk page. Number two, I'd hardly characterize it as vile. Number three, it was in response to an edit he made to mine in which he called my behavior inappropriate. Who the hell does he think he is? I didn't ask for his opinion. Number four, this edit had nothing to do with my being blocked. So why bring it up?
- Two edits [1], [2] which certainly did play a significant factor in this current block. And if you don't think those edits cannot hardly be characterized as vile then I'm thinking we should be making your block an indefinite one. --NeilN talk to me 06:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:RGW and WP:CIVIL. If you continue to post what I am going to describe, with great restraint, as frivolous block appeals, you are going to get your talk page editing rights revoked. And for the record I agree with NeilN. Your statements strongly suggest that you lack the necessary judgement and temperament to constructively contribute to a collaborative project like Wikipedia. You are getting very close to the exit I referenced above. I suggest you change lanes before you run out of road. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- As you created the obvious sock Ultrabomb1 to evade your block, the duration of your block has been reset to one month from today.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Reset to six months for continuing to sock. [3] --NeilN talk to me 15:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ultrabomb. 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 believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC) |
Ultrabomb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I want make the Wikipedia pages "Ashkenazi Jews" and "Khazar Hypothesis of Ashkenazi Ancestry" neutral
Ultrabomb (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts; you will need to address that and only that in any future unblock request. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:46, 20 April 2017 (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.
There is genetic evidence supporting the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. [1] [2] But, there are people who want to keep mention of it off of Wikipedia because they're afraid it would weaken the Jewish claim to Israel in the eyes of the world. Politics and science don't mix. The rules of Wikipedia require articles to be neutral. As it stands now, these articles aren't.
Ultrabomb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I used multiple accounts because my original account was blocked from editing the article "Ashkenazi Jews". That should never have happened in the first placeUltrabomb (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You've now admitted to block evasion to continue editing disruptively. At this point your requests for unblocked have become disruptive, and I am removing talk page access. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2017 (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.
I'd been following the three revert rule. I posted an explanation of my edits to the article's talk page and I even requested mediation, which was denied. I'd like to request mediation again. But, I can't because I'm blocked. Furthermore, the edits I made made the articles neutral, which the rules for Wikipedia require. So, how can that be considered disruption?
UTRS declined
[edit]
wikimedia.org. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)UTRS 38751 decline
[edit]UTRS appeal #38751 is declined. User is banned from UTRS.
According to your user page and block log, you are blocked for sock puppetry and block evasion. Before that, it was edit warring and personal attacks. This edit was accurately described as "vile". The ANI thread sums it up well- HERE. Finally, this is a check user block. Your final avenue of appeal is to email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org . As I failed to ban you from UTRS the last time, I will remedy that error of omission now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)