Hello, Desertambition!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Find a task to help improve Wikipedia.

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. Sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• 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, {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 08:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Desert ambition! I just wanted to follow up from Discord about fraternities and sororities. I'm not sure what type of editors tend to hang out at WP:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities, but it at least seems like an active project. My main suggestion for preventing IPs/new editors from getting away with deleting negative content is to make sure there's always a source (or, better, two) backing it up, since I'm pretty sure edits that remove references are more likely to trigger User:ClueBot NG or catch the attention of users monitoring for vandalism. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 08:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Also, there are some existing pages like Racism in United States college fraternities and sororities that could definitely use a bunch of cleanup. I'd start first with the main Fraternities and sororities page, though, as that has a lot more views and will thus be a better use of editing efforts. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 08:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Pretoria, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of renamed places in South Africa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Queenstown and Maclear. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 05:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I think you need to go one city at a time for name changes. For example, for Talk:Cala, Eastern Cape please start another RM showing examples of media using the name "Kala" as opposed to "Cala". VR _talk 00:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• I understand where you're coming VR, from but there are going to be very few sources specifically talking about a town of 10,000 people almost entirely composed of black Africans. The best sources are going to be government reports on the name change and media reports that the name was changed. Both have already been dismissed so I do not know what sources should be submitted. Desertambition ( talk) 00:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Where were government and media reports dismissed? Can you give me links? VR _talk 00:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • VR

• /info/en/?search=Talk:Port_Elizabeth#Requested_move_30_September_2021

• /info/en/?search=Talk:King_William%27s_Town#Requested_move_27_November_2021

• VR I know you're already thinking that it's not the article on Kala but the same users show up in almost every thread on renamed South African places. I understand that I can submit another move request for every city but the fact is I have no reason to believe this wouldn't devolve into the exact same arguments that have happened on every renamed South African city. Seems much more reasonable to have a discussion in order to understand the policies and guidelines behind these moves so that they can be applied across the board. I am not completely opposed to making it but I hope you'll understand that I would like the discussion to run a bit longer before I go through that. Very tedious, time consuming, and discouraging. Desertambition ( talk) 00:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• In this above links, who is arguing against the reliability of your sources? I see only Park3r, so I don't think reliability was an issue. In fact one person (BilledMammal) specifically said that reliability of sources shouldn't be considered. VR _talk 00:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• VR I don't fully understand your argument. Reliability should matter. The sources I provided are reliable. Both Park3r and BilledMammal are wrong. Park3r doesn't believe African sources are reliable and BilledMammal refuses to accept the sources because they aren't from outside of South Africa I believe. But his reasoning is a bit obtuse and hard to understand. If you can explain their reasoning I would greatly appreciate it. Both of these arguments are deeply flawed. South African and international media have reported on this. All reliable sources. The same argument would be brought up again in another RM just like they have for over a decade. Desertambition ( talk) 01:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello Desertambition! Your additions to User:Desertambition have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. An additional note: I've left the link to the article behind since I got the feeling that you want people to read the original article. While keeping the link on Wikipedia is allowed, I unfortunately have to remove the copied article text since it's not under a free license. Feel free to point others to the article in whichever way you see fit. Thank you. Chlod ( say hi!) 02:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Please do not ever edit my user page again. Desertambition ( talk) 02:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Desertambition: can I kindly suggest you not say things like these. Chlod is right. When people give you feedback, please accept it.

I understand you're upset about wikipedia using apartheid names. I get it. Apartheid was such a sick and disgusting crime. Also shocking was how the rest of the world didn't do enough to help the oppressed people of South Africa. I'm with you on all that.

But, my friend, you have to be polite on wikipedia and follow the rules. Be patient, and sooner or later you will find people start to agree with what you're saying. VR _talk 03:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Hi, Desert -- I apologize for editing your userpage. But in reference to your statement on neutrality there, I would like your opinion, please: Should Wikipedia be neutral when governments commit, condone or sanction atrocities? - JGabbard ( talk) 14:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • To editor JGabbard: What do you mean by that question? I believe if an atrocity has been committed that should be recorded. If that atrocity is condoned and is important enough, then those comments should be included as well. Does that answer your question? Desertambition ( talk) 01:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flag of Arkansas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Confederacy.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your interest in the Flag of Florida. I rolled back your changes because they didn't seem neutral. The Washington Post article didn't really add anything that wasn't covered already, but if you do find some more original sources feel free to add them. A few months ago pulled newspaper archives for when the flag was changed and there wasn't anything in there to tie the change to the Confederacy. That doesn't mean that wasn't the reason, but I haven't been able to find anything to say for sure. Thanks. Nemov ( talk) 03:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for your interest as well Nemov. I'm going to put the paragraph back because I provided three sources. The Washington Post article was not dead as you claimed in your edit summary. I'll add a note that it's not officially confederate but the evidence is quite strong and it is widely believed to be based on the confederate flag. I encourage you to read up on Lost Cause mythology and how many Southern states tried to downplay slavery and embrace confederate imagery. Desertambition ( talk) 04:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You haven't addressed anything I asked and just reverted my change without any consensus to do so. That is not in good faith and your suggestion that I read up on the Lost Cause is presumptuous. The Washington Post "article links to a dead article." That's what I said. You didn't read what I wrote. The Post article doesn't go in depth and links to a dead article. That's what you've added. Now you've added a Denver Post summary that doesn't include any research. If you have some original research to add, please feel free. I would love to see it. As it stands you're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm going to revert again and please this time find some consensus in talk. Nemov ( talk) 13:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbnck ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: The section of the Barbados page provides fully cited references showcasing a mixture of support for, and oppositon to, republicanism. Editing articles on Wikipedia to reflect your opinion is not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbnck ( talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Bbnck This was highly inappropriate. You should not leave messages like this. It is not my opinion, it is the general consensus and people have brought this up to you before. It is not ok to threaten bans. Desertambition ( talk) 04:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

That is not correct. There is only one other talk page where I have been compelled to publish this tag for the same reason I have been compelled to do so herein. It is normal practice on Wikipedia to warn persons using standardised Wikipedia tags. Please familiarize yourself by reading this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbnck ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.   User:Ymblanter ( talk) 11:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Ymblanter I've been editing for years. I feel so defeated. I spent so many hours arguing this and wasn't taken seriously. I do need to take a break but this is seriously intense measures. I was not told I would be blocked for responding and no explanation was given. I engaged with good faith. Seriously upset about this. Feels extremely unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertambition ( talk • contribs) 11:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You can post an unblock request as explained in the template above.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 11:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Please Desert, please listen. I trust Ymblanter as he is an awesome editor and administrator, so please listen carefully to his words, both here and at the noticeboard. Being blocked is not the end of the world, so lean back and take a break. At this point I would suggest that you only answer questions when asked. And when you think you are ready, do use the Unblock template to request the ability to edit again. Again, please listen and learn, so you can come back and help us build and improve this encyclopedia. You are an avidly responsive editor who has shown an ability to learn the policies and guidelines so please don't lose heart, and I hope to see you back to editing soon! P.I. Ellsworth -  ed.  ^put'r there 20:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I would recommend to follow this discussion for a while, I expect that most of the opinions will be given in a couple of days. It is not pleasant, I know, but at least it will give some reasonable picture of what (mostly) uninvolved users think and what they expect. Then, indeed, an unblock request should correspond to these expectations.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, thank you for that. And we hope the New Year will bring excellent editing and happiness to us all! P.I. Ellsworth -  ed.  ^put'r there 20:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Ymblanter:

You didn't read my conversation with Nick-D. I am working on exactly what you are asking for. Why ask for something and then take away my ability to post it? I am working on it right now.

/info/en/?search=User_talk:Nick-D#Working_on_Comprehensive_Review_of_Suspected_South_African_White_Nationalists/Sympathizers

How is it fair to block me and then ignore my questions? Desertambition ( talk) 12:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I was writing my response as I got blocked so that's why you didn't get a response right away. DeCausa Jeppiz

I should have put Afrikaner white nationalist but my main point was illustrating the messaging of white nationalists in South Africa. I have never implied that all Afrikaners are racist because of course they aren't. What I am saying is that there is a significant white nationalist movement in South Africa at the moment that frames the history of South Africa as Afrikaners fighting for their rights against the incompetent/violent South African government/population. That is supported in the news reports I linked. Did you have a chance to watch any of those videos? Desertambition ( talk) 12:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Some advice on raising issues of bias:

• Administrators have no power over content, only to implement some technical actions and assess the outcome of discussions, where all volunteers should be treated equally and judged only on the strength of their argument.
• The more heated and emotional your comments, the less seriously you will be taken, rightly or wrongly.
• To contest article content as biased, it is not enough to say "this is a topic of interest to white nationalism" (for instance, our article on Holocaust denial is not an endorsement of Holocaust denial—it's the furthest thing from it) and it is not enough to say "it is biased". You need to give specific suggestions of what changes should be made and why, with reference to reliable sources. For instance, you might say: "the article makes no mention of this common criticism of Orania, found in Peer-Reviewed Journal Monthly and Newspaper of Record Daily". Or you might say: "the source cited here is a think-tank with political biases, but the article text presents the information as correct rather than attributing it to the think-tank".
• If you want to make the claim that white nationalists control the content of Wikipedia articles, don't. It's too broad and vague. Instead, as the edit history of all Wikipedia articles is public, you can find exactly who wrote what, see whether all of their edits have been biased or factually incorrect, and if so you can raise that specific allegation at a content forum (like WP:ANI, similar to the venue WP:AN that you posted at). Better yet is to try to discuss with the editor specifically what you see as a problem with their edits, and if they respond well you might find an amicable resolution, and if they don't then that's more evidence for your case.

— Bilorv ( talk) 18:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I hope you (Desertambition) are able to get back to editing in a more positive way than before. I think you have a lot to contribute to the encyclopedia, and Bilorv gives some great tips on how to challenge systemic bias in a constructive way. ( t · c) buidhe 05:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked due to disruptive editing and I now have a much stronger grasp of Wikipedia's guidelines. I apologize for my lack of patience and calm. These guidelines were not 100% clear to me beforehand. I hope it is at least partially understandable why I was so confused. It often felt like I was being given conflicting guidance. However, that does not excuse my immaturity and lack of patience. I am working on a much more comprehensive review related to the problems I laid out previously. My arguments are often overly emotional and I recognize that. I intend to further develop a more neutral writing style.

{{{1}}}

I have never intended to cause harmful disruption and I do take issue with the accusation that I am WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. believe that I can contribute a lot to this encyclopedia. I attended the [ South Africa meetup] and had a very reasonable and polite discussion on the topic of South African place names. I hope to attend the meeting at the end of the month as well. I hope it is clear that I am here to build an encyclopedia.

This post is intended to serve as a genuine apology and explanation for why this won't happen again. I fully understand that it was my disruptive editing style that largely contributed to my ban. I maintain that I have not baselessly accused users of being neo-nazis but that my concerns about WP:BIAS and WP:NONAZIS can be handled much more maturely, politely, and calmly. Desertambition ( talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Accept reason:

See discussion below. I am giving you what we call a WP:ROPE unblock. It does not absolve you of fault, but does provide a second chance. Use it wisely; if you are blocked again you are unlikely to be unblocked. Don't be afraid to ask for guidance at my talk page or at the Teahouse, which will probably be better staffed than my talk. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 01:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Adding pings so that administrators are aware of this post. @ Ymblanter:, @ Bilorv:, @ Buidhe:, @ Vice regent:, and @ Paine Ellsworth:. Don't know if I forgot anybody. Desertambition ( talk) 09:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Improved my block appeal with strikethrough so changes are transparent. I believe this appeal is significantly improved from the last one. I hope this makes it clear that I understand what I have to do and just stop arguing. I'm not going to keep bringing it up. I apologize. @ Ymblanter: Desertambition ( talk) 19:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I am not going to review an appeal on my own block. Some other administrator will do this.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 19:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Pinging the first two administrators on Recently Active Admins for my block to be reviewed. Apologies if this is inappropriate.

@ BD2412: @ Liz: Desertambition ( talk) 01:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ After Midnight: @ Keith D: I messed up my pings before and I just realized that. After reading WP:PINGFIX, I am doing the same thing as before and pinging the two most recently active admins on Recently Active Admins for my block to be reviewed. Desertambition ( talk) 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Schwede66: @ Orangemike: This time I made sure to specifically ping admins who have references to handling requests/offering help on their user page. Also found on the list of Recently Active Admins. I think I might be messing up the pings. Desertambition ( talk) 19:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Please stop pinging people to look at your unblock appeal. It is inappropriate. Because of the rules, it may discourage admins from looking at your case.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I am not WP:CANVASSING, there is no bias in who I am pinging, I am just trying to communicate that I would like this appeal to be reviewed. Please do not throw around accusations like that when I am not breaking any guidelines. The end of the month meeting is coming up and I would rather not attend that meeting as a blocked user.

@ Ymblanter: Could you please ask another admin to review my unblock request? Desertambition ( talk) 08:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Charles Matthews: @ Deb: Pinging the first two admins on Recently Active Admins so that they can hopefully review my unblock request. If this is incorrect please tell me that. I find the lack of communication confusing and I am unsure if this appeal is still being considered. I do not believe it would be harmful to allow me to edit again. Desertambition ( talk) 08:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Desertambition also has a habit of responding badly when people post warning messages on his/her talk page. ^{02:32, 31 December 2021, 04:42, 8 January 2022} When a user make mistakes such as posting copyright material or edit warring, they need to be warned. Desertambition should remain blocked until he/she accepts that it is OK for other users to post warning messages on his/her talk page such as the ones on Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  That is unnecessary in my opinion. I have not posted copyright material since that long excerpt was removed from my page. In the second link, it was inappropriate to threaten a ban. Nothing rude about what I wrote. I feel like I am being unfairly put under a microscope for relatively minor infractions here. I'm sure we can nitpick over my profile all day, small interactions that have not repeated do not need to be addressed in a post that is unrelated to that. I have already addressed my past immaturity, lack of patience, and emotional responses. Desertambition ( talk) 15:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  You do not listen (in this as in other interactions with other editors). You focus on the examples and not on the principles.

  Do you accept that it is OK for other editors to place standard warning messages (possibly with explanatory comments) on your talk page?-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• My limited interaction with this user wasn't positive either. I admire the passion, but there seems to be an element of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that is preventing working in good faith. When I attempted to steer user towards consensus about Flag of Florida my guidance was ignored, edits reverted, and user told me to educate myself about the Lost Cause. It appears this is a pattern of behavior. Nemov ( talk) 01:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• To clarify to Desertambition: I am not an administrator, just an editor. This unblock request violates WP:NOTTHEM to an extent where I would recommend that an admin decline it. It contains some good progress towards what we need to hear for an unblock, but does not convince me that the behaviour (or similar) will not re-occur. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Sorry for pinging you Bilorv, I should have looked more closely at the profiles. I was worried about that so I would welcome any feedback. Will try to revise the post. I am saying that I will refrain from performing as many WP:BOLD edits, go to the talk page for controversial topics, and provide detailed edit summaries when I am alleging WP:BIAS from occurring. I fully apologize for my disruptive editing and for not just letting this post stand for itself. I swear to not "labeling opponents as neo-Nazis without evidence" in the future at any point. I intend to back up any allegations with edit histories and discuss issues on the talk page while assuming good faith before I put in any kind of complaint. I was too quick to jump the gun before. Desertambition ( talk) 19:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Just want you to know that I support your unblock and your return to editing. You appear to have met the qualifications to return. When you are unblocked, please remember the Five Pillars and that your future edits will be closely monitored. It will be like an unofficial probationary period with no specified length of time. As long as you do your best, I think you'll be okay. Thank you for helping us build Wikipedia! P.I. Ellsworth -  ed.  ^put'r there 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Desertambition, you still seem to be rather impatient. I can understand why you want your appeal reviewed, but don't expect an instant response. Deb ( talk) 09:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Deb I apologize for that lack of patience. I feel that it will hurt my credibility if I am a blocked user in a Wikipedia meeting. I did not know how long I should wait before pinging someone if I wanted to do this before the meeting comes around. I hope it is clear that I am eager to begin editing again, not trying to harass administrators. Desertambition ( talk) 09:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You have identified a real problem: Wikipedia has lots of out of date and POV articles, and South African articles seem to be especially bad at times. I sympathize with you: I've worked for some years to keep Suidlanders free of white-nationalist guff. But the solution is not to broadly accuse your enemies of collusion in some sort of plot. You will find that most editors are here in WP:GOODFAITH. You will also find that the vast majority of editors share your concern for insidious ethnonationalist ideas infiltrating pages. Those editors work everyday to quietly improve pages with quality research and collegial cooperation. If you are to continue cleaning up pages, you will need that same spirit.

I would describe your conduct charitably as preaching to the choir, or less charitably, mansplaining. Our experienced editors understand the complexities of neo-nazism and racism and other such topics. That such unpleasant material continues to fester in the corners of Wikipedia is a result of not enough volunteer hours, not some fundamental failure on the part of our regular editors. Unfortunately, low edit WP:SPA editors far outnumber our core editing group. If you really want to fix the problem, you will need to work with the regulars, not against them.

I have some element of compassion for you in this matter: our rules are byzantine, and it is hard to fault you for failing to grasp the true nature of AN and our dispute resolution process. But weighed against my concerns with your behavior, I'll admit that your current unblock request is simply lacking. That you then kept posting preach-y screeds has not helped your case. But I think that you could be a productive contributor.

Tldr: this is your chance to succinctly convince an admin that you understand the rules of Wikipedia. Take your time. Research how Wikipedia works. Ask questions. Then when you're ready, ping me and we'll go from there. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 08:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• CaptainEek Thank you for your response. I do have questions and I appreciate that you have extended an olive branch. I feel I understand the many guidelines of Wikipedia better than I did before. I plan to discuss issues on the talk page rather than making WP:BOLD edits. I do not believe randomly accusing users of being neo-nazis is the correct way to communicate on Wikipedia and I never have. Consensus should be respected above all. If I disagree with a consensus, I should either wait a period of time and bring up the subject or I should present compelling evidence that says otherwise (and still abide by consensus even if it disagrees). I do feel that I understand WP:AGF and have abided by it. WP:AAGF seems relevant here as well. I feel like I have been labeled as assuming bad faith despite the fact that I have engaged in extensive discussion on this topic, provided sources, and provided detailed edit summaries. It feels genuinely unfair and stressful to be labeled an intentionally disruptive editor when I do not feel my edit history reflects this. I apologize for being overly involved emotionally in the past. Making the wiki worse is not at all what I am trying to do. I truly wish to resume editing and get involved again. Would it be ok to post the list of users that I posted above to the WP:ANI if I were to be unblocked? That seems to be the proper avenue and method. Desertambition ( talk) 19:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Desertambition You could perhaps report them, though I would suggest some caution given you were just blocked for posting at AN. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Perhaps another way to put it is that friends and helpers don't want you to shoot yourself in the foot again. Desert, you're probably aware of the outcome over at Talk:Qonce. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it! P.I. Ellsworth -  ed.  ^put'r there 11:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  CaptainEek P.I. Ellsworth Thank you both for the advice. I have taken some time off and understand that I should just take some time off from interacting with the ANI. Bringing this issue up again so soon is unnecessary and won't be helpful. Anything controversial should just be discussed in the talk pages and we should follow consensus. I would appreciate a chance to prove my ability to edit in good faith if you feel it is appropriate to unblock me. Desertambition ( talk) 06:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ CaptainEek: Hey CaptainEek, I was wondering if you had seen my message. Hope I'm not bothering you. Desertambition ( talk) 22:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  What would you edit about if unblocked? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ CaptainEek:

1. Start talk page discussions for including confederate symbolism in the MOS:LEAD on Flag of Alabama, Flag of Florida, and Flag of Tennessee given the clearly controversial nature of my edits. I will argue that confederate symbolism meets notability criteria without mentioning or criticizing other users' character.

2. Reverse possible vandalism on List of renamed places in South Africa Edit 1 Edit 2

3. I would also like to update more cities on List of renamed places in South Africa. Both by updating articles that have already been moved ( Ntabankulu, Qonce) and creating move requests for cities that have yet to be updated.

I would like to reiterate that I do not plan to go to the WP:ANI any time soon and I will not discuss user conduct on move requests. Desertambition ( talk) 10:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Slywriter were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Not seeing in-depth coverage of the subject. Seems to be passing mentions

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Annetta Laufer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Annetta Laufer, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Slywriter ( talk) 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, Desertambition! Having an article 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! Slywriter ( talk) 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Mentioning this here, rather than the discussion page, as it isn't relevant there and I believe you are unaware of this: your proposal to merge Zonnebloem into District Six could be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I would suggest withdrawing it, and either asking buidhe to reopen the RM, or waiting a suitable length of time before proposing it again. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for the concern. I was not able to respond while that move request was up and both you and Toddy1 were under the impression the name had not been changed. I provided seven new sources talking about the name change. A merge request is more appropriate than a move request as well. Seems completely reasonable and appropriate to start discussion again. Desertambition ( talk) 14:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I don't believe those reasons grant an exception to WP:FORUMSHOP, but I won't waste any more of our time on this; I will leave it to the closer to consider whether the second request was proper. BilledMammal ( talk) 15:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Quick question; how did you notice the AFD for Golconda? BilledMammal ( talk) 21:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

As it doesn't appear that you will respond: It appears that you are tracking my edits for inappropriate purpuses. Please stop. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ BilledMammal: I am not doing anything inappropriate and I don't appreciate accusations like this. Did you have issues with the argument I presented? Desertambition ( talk) 21:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I find it unlikely that you found that AFD through methods other than tracking my edits; I note it is the first AFD you have participated in. And I do have an issue with that harassment. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

It is not "tracking edits" to voice my opinion in an AFD request. That's absurd. I could raise similar concerns over where you choose to post but that's irrelevant. I urge you to WP:AGF and avoid personal attacks. Desertambition ( talk) 21:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Then how did you find the discussion? BilledMammal ( talk) 21:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Offering my opinion is not WP:HOUNDING. You have raised the same objections to almost every move request I have made in addition to frequently reverting my edits, that seems more like WP:HOUNDING to me. I have not "tracked your edits" and I am asking you again to stop the accusations. If you genuinely believe I am WP:HOUNDING you then you can bring your concerns to the appropriate channels. Desertambition ( talk) 21:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

It's not, unless you found the discussion by tracking my edits. And if that continues, I will. BilledMammal ( talk) 22:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Your threats are incredibly inappropriate and will reflect poorly on you. Desertambition ( talk) 22:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Orania, Northern Cape. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Toddy1: I ask that you not threaten me with blocks for edit warring when you are the one who is edit warring and not taking your concerns to the talk page. I really feel like this is inappropriate. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Desertambition ( talk) 20:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Your recent revert there was your fourth today, breaching WP:3RR. I would suggest that you self-revert - I would also note that the status quo appears to be this, which includes the text you are edit warring to remove. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Toddy1: I restored the edits by Aquillion, which did in fact describe the town as "whites only". So your assertion that I am the only one saying this is false. If the town really isn't "whites only" then you shouldn't have trouble finding consensus on the talk page. Desertambition ( talk) 21:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment Sorry for pinging you Toddy1, thought that you had replied and not BilledMammal. Desertambition ( talk) 21:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

That was my fault, for messing up the signature - apologies. However, it is a 3RR violation - [1], [2], [3], [4], regardless of whether you think you were restoring the status quo or not. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ BilledMammal: How am I violating WP:3RR and Toddy1 is not? You have not raised the same concerns on their page. All I have asked for is to get consensus on the talk page. It's not unreasonable. Desertambition ( talk) 21:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Because they have only reverted three times in the past 24 hours, while you have reverted four. I'm not aware of the discussion or history at that article, but while it is not unreasonable to request that the question is discussed at the talk page, the text should be left at the "last stable version" while that discussion is going on - and it appears that it was last stable on the the eighth of January. BilledMammal ( talk) 22:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I am very sorry, but I have removed a post by you at Talk:Orania, Northern Cape. The purpose of article talk pages is to discuss improving the article, and objections to its content. The post I removed consisted of accusations of racism against another editor. The place for you to make such accusations is WP:ANI. Have a nice day.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Orania, Northern Cape. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. . You are currently at five reverts. The limit is three.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Can you please quit spamming the same links in all the flag articles? Your recent edit for Flag of Alabama is a perfect example. A few editors have pointed out the problems with the additions and the direction seems to be ignored. There's an element of WP:RGW that appears to be working against your ability to edit these flag article without bias. Please find consensus. Thanks. Nemov ( talk) 01:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You are ignoring reliable primary and secondary sources that say it is based on the confederate flag. You have not provided any evidence that contradicts what I have said. The sources I provided are reliable and legitimate. The Flag of Alabama is based on the confederate flag and that's just a fact. The article will reflect that eventually, despite what historical revisionists would like the flag to be. You can't just cite WP:RGW to anything you disagree with. Desertambition ( talk) 01:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I apologize for edit warring, I wasn't paying enough attention to how many reverts I was making. That was not my intention. I hope it's clear I have provided sources and engaged in discussion despite this mistake. Desertambition ( talk) 23:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I do wish I was given a chance to respond and explain my mistake rather than blocking me with the foreboding message "This user only recently came back from an indefinite block, and I am not optimistic about their future on Wikipedia." Doesn't feel like you would have heard me out anyways. @ EdJohnston: Desertambition ( talk) 00:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You already replied extensively in the AN3 report, so if you were intending to be more diplomatic in the future, you could have said so then. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I didn't have a chance to reply to the admin who asked me the question. I am saying that I would like to discuss these issues and not engage in edit warring. I am not on Wikipedia 24/7 so I did not respond immediately. Felt strange that my edit summaries were left out and that is what I mentioned in my response. You're the one with the deciding vote of course so the only thing I can do is what you tell me. It feels like you would prefer if I was banned and I don't think that is an unreasonable statement to make given what you said. All I can do is repeat that I have engaged in discussion, did not mean to engage in edit warring, and have given detailed edit summaries. Surely you can understand why it feels unproductive to have a prior block that has been resolved held over my head. I completely stopped after that report was made and would have liked a chance to respond. Hope you can see it from my perspective. I will do what you tell me regardless. @ EdJohnston: Desertambition ( talk) 01:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment I just came back here to review a reply after another less than positive interaction with this user. Reviewing the last unblock reasoning by CaptainEek [5] shouldn't this be the end of the line? If not, it might make sense to topic ban from certain issues. Racism is a real problem and tackling it everywhere is a worthy ambition, but if an editor can't cooperate with other users or follow guidance then it doesn't matter if their heart is in the right place. If the user can prove to work in good faith on other articles for a period of time then the topic ban could be lifted. Nemov ( talk) 03:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The user was also recently casting unfounded aspersions about me [6], so I am sure they will soon be back to an indef block. They apparently learned very little.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You never showed me where I "accused random users of being neo-nazis". Never. Then you ignored me when I tried to ask you questions, which is against guidelines. Please show me where I did what you accused me of. What actually happened was I posted on the WP:ANI and said "neo-nazi propaganda" when I should have said white nationalism. Not once did I falsely accuse a user of being a neo-nazi. You have never assumed good faith with me and it's frustrating. Threatening users with bans on talk pages is also not good practice, especially when you're already involved. Desertambition ( talk) 07:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

For posterity's sake, Ymblanter left this message on my talk page and then deleted it: "I hope you get there really soon. Zero learning curve. Net negative for Wikipedia." They also did not cite where I did what they accused me of doing because it is completely made up. It is WP:ADMINABUSE but they will face no consequences for blatantly lying. @ Ymblanter: Desertambition ( talk) 14:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You said Ymblanter has a track record of false allegations and inappropriate conduct and now you say the user is blatantly lying. This is a disturbing pattern of behavior towards other users. Based on your lack of ability to communicate in good faith there doesn't seem to be much hope that your behavior will improve. Nemov ( talk) 15:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You are not even following the conversation and you can't stop yourself from being incredibly condescending, please stop. Ymblanter did make up false allegations against me and even now they are unable to provide proof that I ever once "falsely accused users of being neo-nazis" because it never happened. Desertambition ( talk) 15:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Just to note that the same bullshit aspersions continue. "False allegations" is bullshit. The user has been already indef blocked for that. They seem to be incapable of understanding Wikipedia policies, and instead of blaming themselves for this they continue blaming others.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 22:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

And of course what they are saying now is not what they were saying when they wanted to get unblocked. Which anybody can easily check by scrolling a few screens up.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 22:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You keep lying and I am giving you every chance to prove yourself right. All you have to do is link where I did what you are accusing me of. Yet you refuse to do that because it never happened. Everyone is free to check my history and see that you are blatantly lying and getting away with it because you're an admin. I have always maintained that I didn't do what you accused me of and I encourage every user reading this to read what actually happened and realize that you shouldn't be an admin. No one ever fact checked you because you're an admin and can say whatever you want. You're shadow boxing with me and you're upset that I'm not blindly following every blatant lie and intimidation tactic. It's why you deleted that comment and why you keep acting so inappropriately. You threaten users with bans on talk pages when you disagree with their edits. Your childish conduct is just more proof that you have nothing solid to stand on. Desertambition ( talk) 10:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Fine, continue talking to yourself. If someone here is a liar this is you. I do not think you need me here. -- Ymblanter ( talk) 11:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Desertambition, are you still beating this horse? Ymblanters block of you was months ago, and the block was overwhelmingly approved of by the community. You made a list of individuals whom you thought were neo-nazis, including one established and respected editor. While most on your list were probably not helpful editors, none of them had edited in a while, except for the established editor. The only evidence you had against said editor was something they had done years prior. So yes, that was not a good look for you. That you have now tried to rehash that debate is a further bad look for you. That is NOT why you were blocked though!!! You were blocked because you keep edit warring, failing to find WP:CONSENSUS, and just plain not cooperating with other editors. Wikipedia is not some contest to be won, it is a collegial atmosphere to work together with others. Since you keep not doing that, understandably people are alienated by you. You have some good points and editing inclinations. But if you can't follow the rules, you'll find yourself banned again. Not because of some months old accusations, but because of current failure to simply play nice with others. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 00:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Desertambition! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Should we use parentheses or commas when talking about a former name?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot ( talk) 19:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nemov ( talk) 00:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Your reply was Apologies, the same logic applies to google search results, and my edits were minor clarification of an unrelated section. I don't believe your reply was deprived of context, and the nature of my edit means that noting the alterations would be very messy - I don't believe it is necessary here. However, if you feel your reply was deprived of context, please explain and I will address it. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

There is no point to continuing this argument. You clearly are not going to edit your comment. I hold the same position you do but I went ahead and edited it anyway to be WP:NICE. Does not matter that much but my comment is deprived of just as much context, if not more, by what you changed. Given that your comment was primarily about the mention of ngrams and then you added more exact criticism of arguments in support. However, I am not here to WP:SATISFY you so please do whatever you feel like. Desertambition ( talk) 21:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

My comment had one sentence on the close and criticism of the arguments in support, and one sentence on ngrams. You replied to the second sentence, and I, unaware that you had replied to the second sentence, edited the first sentence for clarity. BilledMammal ( talk) 22:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

BilledMammal is requesting I edit my comment to comply with WP:TALK#REPLIED but is refusing to edit their own comment to comply with the guidelines. Seems hypocritical to me. Do not understand why this discussion needs to take place on my talk page but the other discussion did not. Desertambition (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec) I asked for us to move the discussion here, as the extended discussions was starting to take the move review off topics, even though a shorter discussion did not have that issue. As for the differences in situations, your edits removed parts that I had addressed, removing context from my reply. My edits which I made while unaware that you had replied and involved rewriting a sentence to clarify my point, were to a sentence that you had not replied to and so I don't believe they removed context. Further, marking those edits would be very messy and make the comment harder to read, which I don't believe contributes to discussion. However, if you can explain what context was removed, I will make sure to reinstate that context. BilledMammal ( talk) 22:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Strikethrough makes my comment messier and much harder to read as well but I doubt you would consider that true. You know my position, you can make your own decision. I have been clear, you just disagree. Feels like you are trying to argue me into submission and I am going to stop engaging now. If you decide to follow the guidelines you cited to me, then awesome, thank you, etc. If not, that's fine as well. Desertambition ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

It does make your comment a little harder to read, but the difference is that removing the section made part of my reply make no sense, while my edits had, as far as I can tell, no impact on your comment. If you disagree, please give details and as I have offered twice now, I will make sure to reinstate the relevant context. Regarding WP:BLUDGEONING, please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS; if you believe I am being disruptive, then take it to WP:ANI. BilledMammal ( talk) 22:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I have already told you multiple times, yes I would like you to do to your comment what I did to mine.

"But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes.

• Any deleted text should be marked with <del>...</del>, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text, e.g., deleted.
• Any inserted text should be marked with <ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text, e.g., inserted."

You just don't agree with it being important but I am telling you that I believe it is. Please, just do what I did or stop asking me to repeat myself over and over and over again. Desertambition ( talk) 22:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

What I am asking is what context you believe your reply was deprived of. If you can explain that, then I can address it. BilledMammal ( talk) 22:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Orania, Northern Cape. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I deleted the report after you self-reverted your 4th revert.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I appreciate it. Desertambition ( talk) 21:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Well done, getting an anti-monarchist Brexit supporter indefinitely blocked at WP:ANI. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

What a bizarre, unnecessary comment to make. Desertambition ( talk) 06:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply

You have nominated the article for a move, but it looks ripe for a WP:POVFORK where the post-move redirect will be replaced in short order with an article about “actual farm attacks”, which I doubt was your intention (if it was, then you can safely ignore this message). It would quickly render the current article, which reflects years of painstaking consensus, irrelevant, and open a new page for conspiracy theories to proliferate. Park3r ( talk) 21:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Said bin Brahim bin Umran Bakush. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Per Special:PermaLink/1086417138#Desertambition's_hostile_edit_history.

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 ~~~~}}.   Galobtter ( pingó mió) 02:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Galobtter: What should I do/how long do I need to wait before I can start editing again? I understand that the SPI request was a mistake and it was explained to me well by multiple admins. It was my first SPI filing ever. I have reduced the number of edits I make and engage in lengthy talk page discussions. I am just a bit lost as to what I am supposed to do next. Desertambition ( talk) 02:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply

You could appeal the block, explaining how you plan on editing collaboratively and an understanding of WP:AGF and WP:EW, and why you were blocked this time and previously. You might be able to convince people to reduce your block to a topic ban, perhaps the one proposed in the ANI thread. But it may be hard to believe what you write in an appeal, because after your last appeal you said the block was made for false reasons, contradicting your claim that "I understand why I was blocked". Another option would be the WP:SO. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 03:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I understand that I was blocked for disruptive editing. That was not the reason Ymblanter cited for blocking me. Their block was later overwhelmingly affirmed by other users. I accept that. My personal feelings on the block are irrelevant and I won't question the previous block or Ymblanter in the future. I apologize for that.

I understand that I must provide diffs when reporting people, I believe I have done that after the original block.

I am trying in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. I want to keep editing.

I don't think one bad SPI report is indicative of how I can edit. I understand it was extremely poor and incorrect. I want to continue engaging in talk page discussions and avoiding edit wars. I understand that I was blocked due to the discussion on ANI and my combative tendencies. I feel like I've made a lot of enemies and that it's going to be extremely difficult to edit with this account moving forward. That doesn't mean I will switch accounts, it is just a subjective observation on my part.

Assuming good faith means believing other users are trying to improve the encyclopedia in good faith. I understand that. Avoiding edit warring means discussing issues on talk pages rather than making edits that people object to. What kind of topic ban are you thinking of? I really only edit in the same area, so a topic ban is basically an indef ban anyways. Desertambition ( talk) 15:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Galobtter: Clarification and ping: I do not view any editors as "enemies" and believe I am able to reach consensus with editors I have had disagreements with. I was making an observation on the editors who have accused me of sockpuppeting, having an anti-white agenda, etc. That is what can make it stressful to edit. Just wanted to make that clear.

Hello @ Galobtter:, I believe you have missed my response here. If you believe my response was not productive, I'd prefer if you would tell me rather than ignoring my messages. Ymblanter also ignored my questions, one of the reasons I was frustrated with the first block. Is it really a dealbreaker if I still have issues with the first time I was blocked? I feel like you aren't even hearing me out. Especially when I had multiple users accusing me of being a sockpuppet and then the first sockpuppet accusation I made leads to me getting banned and ignored (intentionally or unintentionally). I have been waiting on a response for almost a month and I made sure to ping you. Desertambition ( talk) 00:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Just FYI, Galobtter wouldn't have received a ping for your 10 May message as you didn't sign the post. You can see the requirements for the ping to work at Template:Reply to. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 01:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for letting me know @ Firefangledfeathers:. I apologize for my mistake @ Galobtter:, I didn't realize that my comment wouldn't have actually pinged you. That is my fault for not properly formatting my reply. Desertambition ( talk) 01:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Well, we can also blame MediaWiki for making talk page discussion so unintuitive. Best of luck to you, DA. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 01:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Galobtter: It's important that you understand the reasons why the administrator blocked you before starting an unblock request. A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism.

Don't ask questions within your unblock request; that's reserved to explain why you will not be a problem to the project, not to request clarifications about policy. Before requesting to be unblocked, you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them, though first you have to read the policies they have linked as the reason for the block. If you need to attract the attention of an administrator, you can write @ UserName: in your comment and they will get a notice, provided that you sign your edit with four tildes ( Desertambition ( talk) 17:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)).

I am following guidelines. It is not unreasonable to ask that you respond within the month. We cannot understand how to move forward if we do not communicate. Desertambition ( talk) 17:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ ToBeFree, Bearcat, and Abecedare: Apologies for pinging you. I am requesting that another admin takes responsibility for my block. @ Galobtter: has not responded for over a month and I would like to ask questions about my situation. It is impossible to figure out what to do or express concerns if the admin who blocked me does not wish to communicate. Desertambition ( talk) 21:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Desertambition, please create a normal unblock request using the {{ unblock}} template using the instructions provided at WP:GAB. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ ToBeFree: Thank you ToBeFree, but I would like to discuss the circumstances around my block as well as previous blocks. According to WP:GAB: Don't ask questions within your unblock request; that's reserved to explain why you will not be a problem to the project, not to request clarifications about policy. Before requesting to be unblocked, you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them...

I have been engaging in good faith and waiting patiently for more more than a month now. Desertambition ( talk) 21:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Desertambition, since you pinged me, I'll repeat the advice Galobtter and ToBeFree already gave you: if you wish to be unblocked please request an unblock using the {{ unblock}} template. Any other conversation is unlikely to be productive at this point and frankly comes across as trying to portray this as Galobtter's fault for (justifiably) not participating in a tendentious discussion about the block itself. Abecedare ( talk) 22:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

It's not unreasonable to request that they tell me that rather than assume I can read their mind. I am reading and following guidelines, there was no malice involved. Clearly you have your own opinion so I will shut up and start writing an unblock request. Desertambition ( talk) 22:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Desertambition, part of the block reason appears to be described in [7], which contains eyebrow-raising parallels to the discussion we're currently having here on this page. The questions asked above appear to be challenging the justification of the block rather than asking for policy clarification. However, {{ unblock}} is pretty suitable for challenging the justification of blocks. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I do not feel I will be taken seriously or listened to but I will write an unblock request. Desertambition ( talk) 22:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

"Blaming others" was explicitly mentioned further up on this page. Desertambition, I'm afraid that even before the request is created, purely by discussing when and how to do so, we've reached a point where at least one administrator would decline the request as the issue that led to the block still seems to be present. Me, that is, for one. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 22:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't know what to do when you clearly have told me you won't accept my unblock request. I also can't challenge the block because it means I am "blaming others". I do take the stance that mistakes were made and I am not trying to vandalize, destroy, or disrupt Wikipedia.

I stand by my statement that there was and is some racist material on some South African articles among others. I tried to bring that to the attention of the admins by going to the admin noticeboard. It wasn't a great report, no. But it was made in good faith in an effort to improve the encyclopedia. I have also been accused of being a sock multiple times and those users never had any repercussions. There has not been good communication from admins since the first time I was blocked. Is it seriously Wikipedia policy that I am supposed to assume admins have decided I am not worth responding to and then ask questions in my unblock request? WP:GAB appears to suggest otherwise.

Surely you can see why immediately assuming I'm lying and engaging in bad faith appears to contradict WP:AGF. Desertambition ( talk) 22:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I am not assuming, and have not assumed, that you're lying. There is no reason for you to lie; I have no reason to question your honesty. Accusations of lying have been thrown around above, but not from me and not in this discussion here. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 22:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I can't even explain myself or ask questions without being called a liar. I don't know why the admins hate me so much. They don't even respond to me, just call me an idiot, condescend, and gaslight me. Desertambition ( talk) 22:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

This is factually untrue, as you have not been called a liar after asking questions in our discussion. Neither have you been called an idiot, and the accusation of gaslighting looks baseless as well. There's no hate from me either. Condescending, well, I do agree that unblock discussions are often, and perhaps inherently, condescending and mechanical, sometimes kafkaesque towards the blocked user. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 23:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Before you say this: The lack of factual correctness of a statement does not imply any intent to make a factually incorrect statement. You're wrong, but you're not lying. You're wrong while sincerely believing you're right. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 23:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, apologies for not responding earlier. I've been busy with real life, and I didn't really see any questions from you that needed answering - rather you were making statements as to why you shouldn't be blocked, which should be put in a block appeal. I believe I've explained the block well enough above, and also how to appeal the block. I don't think any of your statements above remove the reason for a block. The only question I see from you that I didn't answer was What kind of topic ban are you thinking of?. As I mentioned, I was referring to the topic ban that was proposed in the ANI thread and received a lot of support. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 03:39, 22 June 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that constantly arguing is not a productive way to build consensus. I realized I needed to take a step back and I did. I believe that I can be a positive contributor and I would like an opportunity to edit again. I want to avoid naming topics/South Africa for a while. I would like to focus on articles like List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Finland-NATO relations if possible. At some point I would like to raise my objections to the Port Elizabeth close as but I believe that I should take some time and edit other areas before I address that. The sockpuppet report I made was poorly composed and did not have compelling evidence. Desertambition ( talk) 6:47 pm, 29 July 2022, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but you are just too combative. This is your second indefinite block in under five months. You are too unwilling to assume good faith. It has not been three months since the debacle of Special:PermaLink/1086417138#Desertambition's_hostile_edit_history. I cannot believe that the change in personality and temperament needed to stop your behavior could have occurred in so short a time. Perhpas you should to take this time away to find a new perspective. Deepfriedokra ( talk) 21:21, 31 July 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.

@ Deepfriedokra: It has been a few months. How long would you like me to wait? I am unsure of what I could do to convince you and there's not a clear timeframe for being unblocked. Thank you. Desertambition ( talk) 23:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Tough question to answer. Until you have felt/acted/been less combative for a while. If you are ready, you will likely have a perspective change that will allow you to look back at this with greater clarity. Everyone wants a set time at this point of their unblock journey. Everyone is different. Deepfriedokra ( talk) 23:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Are you able to write in any language other than English? If the answer is yes, then try editing that language's Wikipedia. If you were able to do that over a sustained period without displaying the faults that got you blocked here, that would be evidence in favour of your being unblocked here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Deepfriedokra: I understand your reservations. I believe that having a broad topic ban, as discussed in the ANI thread, while only editing articles such as Finland-NATO relations and List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay would be a good opportunity to prove I can be a helpful and collaborative contributor. Examples of edits I would like to do:

1. Edit the Guantanamo Bay template to accurately reflect the number of detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay.

2. Help keep Finland-NATO relations and Sweden-NATO relations updated with current accession votes.

3. Expand details on List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

I have not had conflict in this area and I will do all I can to avoid it. I am not asking to revisit contentious topics. Please let me know what you think. Desertambition ( talk) 07:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

What of @ Toddy1:'s suggestion above? What can you do to prevent conflict? That's crucial. You propose to edit only about Guantanamo Bay and Finland-NATO relations and Sweden-NATO relations?

@ BilledMammal, Ravenswing, Galobtter, and Cullen328: your perspectives would be welcome. I would need to overcome my earlier perception. Or not. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 11:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Holy Hell, you were contentious and WP:ABFing June 29. That could push the earliest retuen date out to ca Dec. 29. @ Tamzin: your perspective is always enlightening. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 11:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

There's a great deal of hostility and blocking -- including a prior unblocking on an indef, after Desertambition solemnly pledged that he'd learned his lesson and would do better henceforth. (Not the first time he'd done so, either.) Set against a relatively modest contribution history, and with him swinging fists less than five weeks ago, I'm not really seeing why we should let ourselves open to more drama. He asks what he can do to convince us that he can edit collaboratively and without lashing out at those who disagree with him? Other than Toddy1's suggestion, I can't think of anything that would convince me.

Heck, I'll quote you: the recidivist rate for these high risk unblocks is appallingly high. Ravenswing 14:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I echo Ravenswing's concerns and am unconvinced that unblocking would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 ( talk) 16:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I further echo this point. Any future unblock should be closely supervised. There is a very limited pool of editors who focus on South African topics, and their time can be better spent than dealing with disruptive edits. Park3r ( talk) 02:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• I raised the Special:PermaLink/1086417138#Desertambition's_hostile_edit_history that ultimately ended in the editor getting blocked. There's nothing in this editor's history to suggest they're growing or have learned anything. This latest block was on May 6th and on June 26th they were accusing other editors of bad faith regarding sockpuppet accounts. Even the edit summary [8] pushes this narrative that the world is against Desertambition and the admins are not acting in good faith. I admire the passion, but this is an editor that doesn't have the temperament for Wikipedia. Nemov ( talk) 20:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Deepfriedokra: I do not speak any language other than English. I have apologized for my actions and will willingly avoid the areas that caused conflict for the foreseeable future. I am not sure what kind of change you would like to see. I do not believe there is anything left to say that has not already been said. Desertambition ( talk) 04:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Do you know about Simple English Wikipedia? It is written using basic English-language words and short sentences.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't recommend simplewiki. They have a one strike rule. You might get one waring before they block you. Might not get the one warning. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 11:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Deepfriedokra: It is unclear how long you would like for me to wait given that I only speak English. I would like to show that I can edit productively and I have in the past. Making productive edits is the only way to show that I am capable of doing so. How do we move forward? (Also, I love fried okra. Not relevant to the conversation but I just realized that's what your username said.) Desertambition ( talk) 21:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Looks like you were blocked in May. Six months minimum is the time recommended for the WP:SO. Don't know if that would fly or not. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 21:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Of course some people count the six months from the last edit, which is today. But you would need to convince the reviewer, and possibly the Community that the problem won't recur. I have a horrendous track record of my unblockees getting reblocked within a month. Oh, yes the last straw poll results were not favorable. You might want to ask the other admins that have been here, but I am more prone to unblock that some of the others. In any event, I could not unblock at this point without clearing it with the blocking admin Galobtter. In unblock discussions, the silence of the blocking admin generally means they do not support unblocking. Galobtter has not responded that I see to my ping. That silence is ominous. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 22:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

More fabricated allegations from Toddy1 and BilledMammal. [ [9]]

This is complete bs when I was indeffed for making a single sockpuppet allegation. This is like the fourth allegation against me. I have only edited on this account. I have never even used an IP. Good to see that Tamzin has strong suspicions I am socking as well. Wtf am I even supposed to say? I have not edited, you can use CheckUser (and I am almost certain you have).

What's really happening here is that some admins/power users want to ban me but they know I haven't actually committed any bannable offenses. Admins have already made clear to me that I am almost certainly unable to successfully appeal this block. If I were to accept everything they are accusing me of then I would be covered with a broad topic ban which kneecaps my ability to edit topics I am interested in. So they are trying to bait me into sockpuppeting by not following their own guidelines (ie. WP:GAB) while being very aware that all of my edits are being reversed. I can see they have been going through my previous edits and reversing many of the changes I made. It's also convenient that I am unable to defend my position on articles while I am indeffed like this. Toddy1 and BilledMammal are lying and have been lying about what I am doing. I have never and will never use a sockpuppet. Desertambition ( talk) 12:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Tamzin: Can you explain why you believe these allegations when I was banned for making similar allegations? Cannot believe you are humoring this nonsense. There is clearly a bias against me. How are two edits convincing enough for you? Desertambition ( talk) 12:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• The accusations weren't baseless or BS; it was a well-reasoned SPI. Ultimately, I decided I wasn't convinced (and indeed, for the sake of anyone reviewing an unblock request in the future, should you file one, I've stressed that I don't think that this was you socking), but I don't think it was unreasonable for Toddy and Billedmammal to suspect you. And now the system has worked as intended, and the SPI has been closed without action. Your decision to personalize the whole thing while it was ongoing, though, reflects the same issue that got you blocked. I can't imagine I'm the only person who looks at some of the things you've said about racially biased coverage and broadly agrees. But this is a collaborative project, and if you constantly seek to make enemies rather than friends, you won't get very far. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 19:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  I understand I can be combative and I apologize for that. Reading through what I wrote can be embarrassing at times. There is a problem with baselessly accusing others of racism, I agree. I also understand why my original reports were not well reasoned or concise and I believe I understand what problematic edits are. I have not been making frivolous reports on ANI and I intend to discuss topics reasonably. I appreciate your comments about your belief that I was not sockpuppeting. I have been going through personal issues and I know that is not an excuse but it has made me much more stressed out. It feels like an uphill battle to make friends here but I have tried in good faith. I will hopefully submit an unblock request soon. Desertambition ( talk) 19:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, Desertambition. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Annetta Laufer, 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) 17:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I do not think the draft should be deleted, so I made an edit to it. That should give it another 6 months.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I was blocked for making a bad SPI report yet other users are free to lie through their teeth and accuse me of socking 24/7 with no consequences. Toddy1 is again lying about me socking after being proven wrong the first time https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ora_(currency)&diff=1107041032&oldid=1107040129 The double standards are so obvious. Desertambition ( talk) 02:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Pinging @ Toddy1: because I mentioned their name and forgot to ping. Apologies for the lack of ping. I would appreciate if you would stop with the false accusations please. It's bizarre to see no consequences for obvious falsities and lies. Desertambition ( talk) 16:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Desertambition, I suggest stepping away from Wikipedia for a long period of time. It appears you're still harboring grudges and stirring up controversies long after being blocked. Every time you accuse others it just reduces the chance you'll ever be unblocked. Based on your combative behavior and constant hostility who would be surprised if you created a sock-puppet? I certainly wouldn't be and you have a lot of work to change minds. Walking away for a period of time is the first step. Nemov ( talk) 17:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Desertambition: It is a reasonable suspicion as the IP reinstated a previous edit of yours. At some point, I said that every time you edit, you reset the six-months-without-editing timer for eligibility to be considered for unblocking. By my reckoning, you've pushed that date out to Feb. 28th, 2023.... Nemov offered excellent advice above. I'm going to help you follow that advice by removing your talk page access. Please be aware that if you edit logged out or by creating a new account, you will ensure never being unblocked. Ever. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 18:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Per Special:PermaLink/1086417138#Desertambition's_hostile_edit_history. Now helping user let go.. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.   -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 18:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

per UTRS appeal #84889 -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 20:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

It has been about a year and a half since I was blocked. I fully understand why I was blocked and I intend to discuss any disputes I may have with people on the talk page. If someone reverses my edit, it's important to politely engage and understand what was wrong with the edit rather than edit war. I have to assume good faith and if I have an issue there are channels to bring that up in. I believe in the message of Wikipedia and I hope I can improve the experience for other users. Desertambition ( talk) 8:29 pm, 14 February 2024, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

Conditionally per special:permalink/1208069537#Unblock discussion. "User:Desertambition is topic-banned from undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America). They may appeal these sanctions, in whole or in part, in 3 months. Contravening the topic bans will result in an indefinite block, which must be appealed at WP:AN. They are also cautioned against polemic conduct, casting aspersions, personal attacks, edit warring, and adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing." Welcome back. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 16:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Welcome back; though I felt it necessary at the time I was a little sorry to see you go as I felt you genuinely wanted to contribute to the encyclopedia, and I hope this time goes better. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I hope we can edit collaboratively and civilly. I appreciate the message. Desertambition ( talk) 07:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Galobtter: I'm a bit fuzzy on the history. Does this suffice? -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 07:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Is this a WP:CBAN needing to go to WP:AN? -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 07:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

It's a regular block. I would prefer a more detailed appeal, but I think unblocking with the tban is ok, if they agree to that. My recollection is that their last unblock appeal also seemed sincere and then they contradicted what they said in their appeal later, so I hope this time the appeal is genuine. I would caution Desertambition that if this appeal is accepted but third indef has to be imposed, it is unlikely to ever be lifted. Galobtter ( talk) 02:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sounds good to me if that's ok with you all. I don't really have anything else to say. Hope I can help improve the site and collaborate to make it better. Warning heard. Desertambition ( talk) 05:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

If this is lifted I suggest implementing the topic ban proposed here; last time they were unblocked, after an appeal similar to this one, they went straight back to causing disruption - hopefully the proposal in that ANI thread would prevent that while still giving them the chance to demonstrate that they can contribute productively. BilledMammal ( talk) 09:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I brought the original ANI and would support an unblock with that topic ban. That would give the editor an opportunity to prove they can edit constructively. Nemov ( talk) 13:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

weel, then. Thanks @ Galobtter, BilledMammal, and Nemov: I'll be back. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 10:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Could we have a clear and concise statement of the proposed TBAN so there is no misunderstanding? -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 10:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ BilledMammal: I'm old. I'm tired. Make it simple for me? -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 11:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Deepfriedokra: The proposal in the link @ BilledMammal: provided is:

User:Desertambition is topic-banned from undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America). They may appeal these sanctions, in whole or in part, in 3 months. Contravening the topic bans will result in an indefinite block, which must be appealed at this noticeboard. They are also cautioned against polemic conduct, casting aspersions, personal attacks, edit warring, and adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing.

Desertambition ( talk) 11:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

And this is acceptable to you? -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 12:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Emalahleni Local Municipality, Mpumalanga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your contributions to Caspian Basin. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. — Moriwen ( talk) 18:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you, that article should have had a source and could have been much better. Desertambition ( talk) 07:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Caribbean Basin, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean Basin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply