User talk:Sr. Blud

Welcome!

Hello, Sr. Blud!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 19:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcoming :) Sr. Blud (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sr. Blud - This does not imply that you are not constructive, but this is an alert letting you know that you must be extended-confirmed in order to start a topic on a controversial topic. Thanks. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, okay. I understood. Nobody wants an edit war in a sensitive topic. Sr. Blud (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But, what does "Refrain from gaming the system" mean? Sr. Blud (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it means "don't cheat to win an argument". See Wikipedia:Gaming the system for a full explanation. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 09:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "dont use fake accounts in a vote"? Sr. Blud (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i have a question. What is Extented Confirmed User? Sr. Blud (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And how can I be an EXC? Sr. Blud (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using a fake account to vote is known as sockpuppetry, and editors who do this can get in a lot of trouble. Another example of gaming the system would be trying to get around the three-revert rule by making exactly three reverts every day. The main problem with these actions is that they don't respect other editors. As long as you try to respect other editors, you should be fine.

As for your question about extended confirmed users, this just means editors who have been around for 30 days and have made 500 edits. Keep editing, and you'll get there eventually. It took me three years to become extended confirmed because I didn't edit much at first, but some people reach this level in just one month. It all depends on how often you edit. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 09:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, looks like this will take a long time... i hope i will get it asap. Sr. Blud (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you want it as soon as possible let administrators know that you want ecp and why. i believe it has to be specific, so no basic answers. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you currently have 208 edits on this version of wikipedia, so if you are too shy to ask any administrator, feel free to contribute until you have 500 edits, and also wait for 5-6 more days so that you reach all of the criteria required for ExC. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I also have a question, what about those "unconstructive" edits? Would I get banned because of this? Sr. Blud (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

first of all, 'banned' means getting banned from an article. luckily you won't get banned since you were just given a warning, not a big deal. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Hello, I'm Freedoxm. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Murder of George Floyd 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. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing queries at Teahouse

Although not a strict requirement, Teahouse Host qualifications also call for >30 days and >500 edits. Please refrain from commenting at Teahouse, especially if you can not provide a helpful, true answer. And do not provide links to other editors and suggest that they can help with the question. David notMD (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

they pinged me and claimed that i 'could help' in making an svg of the city of Hawthorne, California, even though i have visited hawthorne a lot and i am familiar with it. i have never went on that article and i have absolutely no experience in creating svgs. apparently they also keep asking what is exc, which is what you mentioned above, >30 days and >500 edits. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likely in comparison to NotSoTough.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I see. they act pretty much the same, especially with how they use ":)". 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 00:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accept i am a sockpuppet of @BaharatlıCheetos2.0 but i don't want to make the mistakes i made in the past before. But I don't know how can I prove myself and get "forgiven". Because of that, I am still sockpuppeting. Sr. Blud (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal from one account. Your history of unconstructive edits makes a successful appeal unlikely, but that is not my decision to make. If an admin is convinced that you are sincere, they may give you a chance. If you continue to ignore these sanctions and create new accounts regardless, read this essay on quietly returning. Keep your head down. Don't draw attention to yourself. Don't make unnecessary edits just so you can get to 500. Don't ping users when they aren't relevant to the discussion. Don't ask me or Freedoxm for help because we'll probably file a sock puppet investigation. And please don't respond to questions at the teahouse until you have a clue. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 20:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And your sentence, Because of that, I am still sockpuppeting , doesn't give a whole lot of confidence. You need to demonstrate that you have understood your mistakes and you're not making a request just to get back to your previous activities TNM101 (chat) 09:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of countries with HMPV cases (March 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BD2412 was:

Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This does not appear to pass WP:NLIST for notability as a freestanding list. The content could be covered adequately at Human metapneumovirus.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of countries with HMPV cases and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BD2412 T 00:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sr. Blud! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! BD2412 T 00:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Damascus Governorate campaign (2011-2018)

Hello, Sr. Blud. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Damascus Governorate campaign (2011-2018), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]