User talk:Denarivs

February 2017[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Noel Ignatiev. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Physical removal[edit]

A tag has been placed on Physical removal, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is an "attack page", and appears to be primarily intended to disparage or threaten its subject. This includes biographies of living people that are unsourced and entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks; attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
It is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. (See section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Noel Ignatiev, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every claim I made was already in the article (and well sourced.) Denarivs (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Denarivs reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warring at Progressive stack[edit]

If you are unable or unwilling to engage in the talk page discussion and continue to revert, you are simply edit warring. I started a discussion and you have chosen to ignore it and repeatedly revert. Your history shows a pattern of behavior on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 14:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I did respond to you on the talk page. And none of those words are in the article now anyways, so there shouldn't be any problem. Denarivs (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you reverted (again). Your response was minimal other than saying basically your wrong. That's not a discussion it's a declaration. Your edits were bold, and two people have reverted and you are still edit warring. -- GreenC 23:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Army Faction[edit]

Careful with the ongoing, slow-burning edit war there; it seems to have been going on since last week. It's been noticed. Go to the article talk page and discuss why / why not the RAF were left wing or communists. Cheers! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions notice[edit]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history at Rojava shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you have produced is a long history of POV edits, BLP violations, edit wars, and now disruptive nonsense edits on Cult of Kek, for instance--this, this, and this. Interested administrators will note the really funny edit summaries. They will also note that your edits ("Kek is worshiped through repetition of the phrase "praise kek"", last diff) attempt to invent a reality where there is none ("lulz"), uses ridiculous sourcing make something look verified (the second diff, last section), and otherwise inserts nonsense into encyclopedic articles (first diff, the Germanwings stuff, for instance). Drmies (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I hope this is the right place to add my concerns about this user. A month ago I reverted an anonymous edit on the Diego Garcia article as unsourced and politically biased. The deportation of the Chagossians, residents of the island, by the British government in the 1960's (so a US military airbase could be built) is controversial and has been the subject of legal actions escalating to the High Court and the House of Lords. This week Denarivs restored the biased edit and added to it. I must admit that, having had my edit reverted, I initially just reverted Denarivs's edits back a couple of times, but started a discussion on the article's talk page yesterday, before I was aware of his other activity and these sanctions. Denarivs's edits to the Diego Garcia article seem to reflect an alt-right viewpoint, consistent with him edit-warring over a historian's "jewishness" and calling people "communists". Thanks for your work on wikipedia. --Stroller (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ignatiev edits were cleared at ANI and I reverted the Red Army Faction editing myself after I realized it wasn't supported by reliable sources, as I mistakenly believed. Denarivs (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've made hundreds of substantive edits (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hezbollah_armed_strength&action=history) over four years and the information I added to the article in question was all sourced to reliable sources. The first link was adding information that was a summary of the linked sources and is a fairly central part of this subject. Reliable sources (eg. http://baltimore-art.com/2017/02/11/the-aesthetics-of-the-alt-right/) substantively support everything I've added. I wrote a 10000 character article with dozens of sources and you say I'm "clearly" not here to contribute? Denarivs (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - only one appeal should be open at a time. Just Chilling (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2017 (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.

What you need to explain is the trolling on this Kek article. No, that information was not all sourced to reliable sources, and on top of that it was misrepresented for the lulz. Admins, please peruse the article history and the edit summaries; Denarivs is probably not the only troll in that history, but they've done plenty. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I made were in good faith and represented my understanding of the subject. Every single sentence was sourced to reliable sources, often multiple ones. This is flatly not trolling, it's adding true and verifiable information as represented by secondary sources. You can argue over whether the stuff deserves to be in the article – there's legitimate debate over that, sure – but it's flatly wrong to misrepresent it as trolling and "lulz". I'm just trying as best I can to write an article, to improve others, and getting banned for adding some background information to an article I wrote doesn't help me improve wikipedia. Denarivs (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

The edits I made were in good faith and represented my understanding of the subject. Every single sentence was sourced to reliable sources, often multiple ones. This is flatly not trolling, it's adding true and verifiable information as represented by secondary sources. You can argue over whether the stuff deserves to be in the article – there's legitimate debate over that, sure – but it's flatly wrong to misrepresent it as trolling and "lulz". I'm just trying as best I can to write an article, to improve others, and getting banned for adding some background information to an article I wrote doesn't help me improve wikipedia. Denarivs (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In this edit you say that Germanwings Flight 9525 is connected to the Cult of Kek referencing a Daily Mail article. The Daily Mail article doesn't mention the Cult of Kek at all. PhilKnight (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2017 (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.

Your GA nomination of Hezbollah armed strength[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hezbollah armed strength you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stingray Trainer -- Stingray Trainer (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hezbollah armed strength[edit]

The article Hezbollah armed strength you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hezbollah armed strength for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stingray Trainer -- Stingray Trainer (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Free World# Recent additions and reverts". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cnilep (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]