User talk:HabichuelasBeans

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Seven Military Classics, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Tang dynasty, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Remsense诉 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Negrito. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Tang dynasty, you may be blocked from editing. Remsense诉 20:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Genetic and anthropometric studies on Japanese people into Jōmon people. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2024 (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} 20:59, 27 June 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

This must be a mistake. How can I just be blocked like this? I do not understand why my account would be blocked. I did nothing wrong. What is the evidence for " Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively". I may have accidentally edited logged off but that long ago and few time times and it was not for any edit war, not more than one time. You can check. My account which previously blocked was un-banned. If you want evidence I shall provide it. My IP got unblocked but now now again you blocked it. What is the point? You might aswell had never given me the chance to come back to wikipedia.HabichuelasBeans (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One unblock request at a time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:18, 28 June 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.

The editor interaction tool and the evidence posted to CU wiki beg to differ.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 27 June 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why unblock my IP address only to block me again. Should have blocked me forever instead of making me wait 1 year for nothing. What is even the point of lifting my block and than again only to block me again. HabichuelasBeans (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One unblock request at a time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:18, 28 June 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.

You, the individual, are banned from editing Wikipedia regardless of the length of the block on your IP address. You cannot edit under any account or IP unless the block on your original account is lifted.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 27 June 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is my IP account which gave me 1 year block length and it was lifted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:77.103.186.178 " I waited until it expired. It said this ----> " Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. The blocked was 15:40, 9 May 2023, I waited until it got lifted, now I'm supposed to be blocked again. What was the whole of me waiting for 1 year. I did not used any other account from the day I got lifted. This is all extremely unfair on me. If you can tell me what other account I abused? I used only 1 account. What other account are you accusing me off... please check on it HabichuelasBeans (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Due to the repeated sockpuppetry proven by CheckUser evidence, you are considered to be banned by the English Wikipedia community. The instructions for how to appeal this ban are at WP:UNBAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 28 June 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.

Adding a bit: The appeal will require a volunteer to copy your statement over to WP:AN. I think it's unlikely that anyone will volunteer to do so until some time has passed since this recent act of sockpuppetry. Speaking just for myself, I would not consider doing so until a year has passed with no socking. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the administrator who blocked this account linked it to the long-term abuser WorldCreaterFighter. Yue🌙 02:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 14:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the relevant SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamlos. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was even the point to give me 1 year account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HabichuelasBeans (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We almost never indefinitely block IPs. The point of the lengthy IP block was to help enforce your indefinite ban. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might aswell be considered trolling. Give me 1 year block and only to ban me again? Meaning this will happen even if I wait until 2026, after 2 years wait. HabichuelasBeans (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a 1 year block, and you never have. You were initially blocked indefinitely, and that was eventually changed to an indefinite community ban. This will happen again if you wait until 2026 and engage in more sockpuppetry. The only avenue back to editing is an appeal of your community ban. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for my ban? But even I have to wait one year. What are the chances that they will unban me after one year? close to zero? HabichuelasBeans (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way of evaluating the likelihood of a successful appeal, but they are a common occurrence at WP:AN. Read WP:GAB for tips, and consider demonstrating constructive work on an affiliated wiki (on you original account). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this to be a waste of my time. If you told me after 1 year and I appeal than yes, but your basically telling me I could peacefully wait one year and I still can't come back? HabichuelasBeans (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is possible, yes. I am also concerned about wasted time, and I've reached the point where I no longer care to reply here. Best of luck to you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]