User talk:Falconfly

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uraeus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Your recent editing history at Christian terrorism 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours 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 ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antediluvian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sumerian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Your recent editing history at Synapsid 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. Anaxial (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Mars (mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Etruscan and Maris

Proto-Indo-European mythology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Taran

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Mars (mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Etruscan and Maris

Italic languages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lusitanian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuvuuia (talk • contribs) 21:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making legal threats is a bannable offense. Retract it now. --Tarage (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my response, @User:Tarage

Already seeking a block for NLT. You did this to yourself. --Tarage (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And screencapped. YOU did this to yourself <3

Blocked

Hi. As noted in the ANI report, you have repeatedly made legal threats on Commons,[1] and have as a result been blocked indefinitely there.[2] Consequently, I assume that you know the Wikimedia foundations view of legal threats, as laid out here. Moreover, you have been warned and asked to withdraw them,[3] with no effect. You have been blocked indefinitely for making legal threats on Wikipedia, as well as for persistent personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. {{unblock|Sent an email and messages on Wikimedia and Wikipedia pages explaining, hopefully you'll address this soon.}}

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #23247 was submitted on Nov 13, 2018 22:13:28. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I additionally request that the offending users are dealt with as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talk • contribs) 22:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the offending users have been dealt with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under email suggestions, template uploaded with alterations:

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).

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

Request reason:

Sent an email and messages on Wikimedia and Wikipedia pages explaining, hopefully you'll address this soon.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You seem to have a mistaken belief that somehow an e-mail to anyone is going to get you unblocked. You won't be until you retract the legal threat. Period. It's that simple. --Tarage (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^
|

Example of spitefulness my detractors display. I alone am by default being slighted here, but since you insist further:

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).

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

Request reason:

reason= * Not necessary. I am simply doing my contributions, when people outright censor me entirely out of spite (see above example to see how extensive TOS breaking harassment goes unpunished). Additionally users on administrator notice page have admitted outright personal investment in my ban and openly endorse abuse here; this goes beyond incompetence in terms of the wiki's image. * I understand the charges and I only agree with legal threats. I have abundantly demonstrated I am willing to take issues to talk pages (i.e. recent Deinonychus talk page edits; met with personal attacks, mind you).

Decline reason:

Declined and talkpage access revoked, per WP:EVADE, WP:NLT, WP:NOTTHEM, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and so on, and so on... Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:13, 14 November 2018 (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.

1. You have no free speech here. This is a private website. You can be removed at any time.

2. So long as you have a legal threat open, you cannot edit. This is done to defend Wikipedia. You CANNOT have an open legal complaint and be unblocked. PERIOD. This is not negotiable for anyone. Not you, not me, not Jimmy. Until you retract it, you will be blocked.

3. You're about to lose your talk page access which will make getting unblocked that much harder. I suggest, one last time, that you stop and retract it. --Tarage (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^
|

See continuous harassment over there; keywords including "no free speech" and outright intimidation.

One example of taking a discussion to the talk page - which is after being called out for edit warring - does not clear your slate. Even past the legal threats, you have repeatedly demonstrated violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding original research and synthesis, neutral point-of-view/conflicts of interest, edit warring, civility, and sockpuppeting over a period of almost three years. None of this you have even addressed, let alone refuted. Accusing everyone who confronts you of harassment and spite is not helping your case. Shuvuuia (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, bold of you to call that "intimidation" after you heaved a legal threat at me. Shuvuuia (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you're doing just that - and after edit warring in spite of my explanations, making you a hypocrite of the highest caliber no less - I see my point is only strengthened. Your actions are pretty much a non-stop of personal bias and strife in spite of multiple pages of discussions on various edits.

Alright, I give up. Your talk page access will be revoked soon enough so you can scream into the void all you like, no one will hear. --Tarage (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I have screencapped your pathetic, desperate bravado regardless.

...What does that even mean? You took a screenshot. Congratulations? What do you think is going to happen? --Tarage (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me, given how desperate you are to intimidate.

What happens next is you lose your ability to edit this page, much like what happened at the commons. Do you think anything else is going to happen? What do you honestly think a screenshot is going to accomplish? --Tarage (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you tell me. You sure seem nervous at the prospect, up to incriminating yourself unnecessarily...

@Falconfly: I have never had any interaction with you, nor have I had any participation in any of the deletion discussions here or on Commons. As such, I am about as neutral a party in all this as can be. Nor am I an admin, so I have no power to enforce anything. You will of course notice that I have supported the proposed site ban. This is purely based on my objective read of the situation presented here and on Commons. However, I would be open to reviewing my support for your site ban if you can show your understanding that many of your contributions have violated some core Wikipedia policies. --Blackmane (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed many edits in the past. Some have, others have not, others have not but spiteful people have been spiteful anyway. I don't know what you're asking for: you claim to be allowing me a second chance, but I have and you meanwhile ignore these people harassing me and acting spiteful.@Blackmane:

I have looked through all the material that was presented, both on Commons and here, in the ANI post. The commons issues I won't address as that has already been dealt with. However, my thoroughly bystander view is that all the editors who have had interactions with you have not been harassing you. They have been trying to ensure that your contributions comply with policy particularly the ones forbidding original research and synthesis of sources. Also, I have noticed that you have referenced your self published books in the past. Unless these books are considered reliable sources, then referencing them would fall under a violation of the no original research and synthesis policies. As a neutral party, I can safely say, with confidence, that none of the editors have been acting out of spite. Their goal, at the end of the day, is the maintenance of the Wikipedia's integrity. --Blackmane (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice to say, your judgement is either quite biased or not very thoughtful, since you're ignoring Tarage's multiple intimidation threats, Shuvuuia deliberate obtusity, the now various statements in PERSONAL INTEREST in the administrator page, FunkMonk's now spiteful move on another Wikimedia page, their contstant edit warring in spite of my explanations addressing their accusations of "original research", et cetera. @Blackmane:

Until you realise that original research is not allowed (or even what it is), your edits in that vein will be reverted on sight. It has nothing to do with you personally, however much you would like that to be the case. As for the image tagging (the image source has zero indication of it being CC licensed), I have explained to you countless times how to circumvent deletions, but you simply don't listen. If you don't heed advice, what do you expect us to do? FunkMonk (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your deliberate obtusity has been noted several times already. Also, fine of you to say that when you're "targeting on sight"; its almost like you're incapable of hiding your spite...@FunkMonk:

For the record, edit summaries like "You blind fool megafuck."[4] done while evading a block doesn't help your case. I don't expect you to last long here with that behaviour. FunkMonk (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evading a block was the only way to address the issue there, on accounts of my ban on Wikimedia having not been lifted at the time. I get cowardice is your thing, but it is not helping your character, let alone your claims of lack of spite.@FunkMonk:

I have tried to help you plenty of times in the past by explaining to you how to do things around here. But I guess I'll just stop that. Have a nice Wikibreak. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DFTT 108.41.24.3 (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #23253 was submitted on Nov 14, 2018 11:40:20. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tarage's comments are not relevant to the main point, their comments certainly aren't helpful but I had hoped to focus on the content rather than editors. Shuuvia's comments are similar to mine, in short an repeat of the fact that your edits do not comply with policy. My thought was to focus on helping you look into the content, but instead you've chosen to to focus on editors and your perceived notion that they are doing things out of spite. Spite implies that they are deleting your images, reverting your edits, because they have some sort of hatred for you. You may be surprised to hear that you are not the centre of the universe, no one actually cares who you are, they are only concerned with the fact that you have a history of violating policy. As it stands now, the discussion has been closed and you are now site banned. I had hoped you could be brought round to understand what so many editors had been trying to get you to see, and that a ban could be avoided. However, that's too late now. I wish you well in your other endeavours. --Blackmane (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

Please note that you have now been site-banned by the community. A link to the discussion can found on your userpage. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Falconfly. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25741 was submitted on Jun 27, 2019 11:22:50. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25744 was submitted on Jun 28, 2019 08:12:14. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miosynechodus

Dear Falcon, since you have acess to the paper on Miosynechodus, could you send me a link or something. I want to take a look. Could you please help me?--Bubblesorg (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubblesorg: Falconfly has been permanently banned and has had their talkpage access revoked. I've managed to find a link to a paper that mentions the taxon [5]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #69802

is declined. User should not make another WP:UNBAN request prior to 2023-08-21 (see WP:SO) and will need to address their horrific behaviour. User was warned the odds of being unbanned are slim given their previous behaviour. -- Yamla (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023-09-03 now, after UTRS appeal #70267. --Yamla (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #78610

is declined. Confirmed ban evasion. User is next eligible for consideration on 2024-03-13, and only if they cease editing between now and then. Any future unban requests will need to address their chronic evasion. --Yamla (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now 2024-04-30.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #80535

is closed. Confirmed block evasion today. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]