User talk:Mast303

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Levant

[edit]

Just fyi, "Middle East" is a geopolitical term not a geographic one so please don't change it again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Levant&oldid=1289113987 Theofunny (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Test2

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Test2, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Comida

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Comida requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 7. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. PamD 05:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 12345678901234567890

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 12345678901234567890, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

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 deleted 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. Cinaroot (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Blue-yellow blindness

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Blue-yellow blindness, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

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 deleted 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. Cinaroot (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your technical move request

[edit]

Hello Mast303, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Minecraft mobs (May 18)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was:
This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read "What Wikipedia is not" for more information.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Appears to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE as purely gameguide content. It would require sources talking about Minecraft mobs as a group specifically to actually be suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Create account" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Create account has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 18 § Create account until a consensus is reached. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of national capitals by longitude (May 19)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CoconutOctopus were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read "What Wikipedia is not" for more information.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
No evidence this list is notable or useful enough to warrant inclusion.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
CoconutOctopus talk 13:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Mast303! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CoconutOctopus talk 13:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prod endorsement

[edit]

Hi Mast303, if you want to endorse a prod nomination, you shouldn't substitute the endorsement like you did here, instead use the template like this. Nobody (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anti-Israel sentiment among youth in the United States (May 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sophisticatedevening was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Criticism of Israel. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 04:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Draft:Anti-Israel sentiment among youth in the United States

[edit]

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Draft:Anti-Israel sentiment among youth in the United States has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://time.com/6958957/growing-antisemitism-young-americans/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. asilvering (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

[edit]
Under construction icon

Thank you for your recent contributions, such as Draft:Bias in US education. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft of your article in draftspace or in your userspace first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, with less risk of deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Draft:Bias in US education has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 04:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon Please do not remove copyright templates from articles, as you did with Draft:Bias in US education. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept non-free text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the issue at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Draft talk:Bias in US education/Temp. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators and/or removers of the copyright notice templates will be blocked from editing. twisted. (user | talk | contribs) 04:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]
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).

Mast303 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think this indefinite block is excessive. I have been blocked for "producing copyright violations", but my edits to both of the articles were before a single warning and I will never do so again. I understand that copyrighted content is not acceptable. I have also made other constructive edits and plan to do so. I am not new to Wikipedia itself, but I have only recently started creating actual articles, and I needed to understand the rules. In addition, prior to the copyright problems and after being extended confirmed, my edits were mostly constructive. I have also been blocked for "edit warring", but recently, I only got close to WP:3RR on the page Start school later movement - and I added a reliable source the second time I did it. Mast303 (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC) (Updated 17:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Decline reason:

I am listing below some of your other accounts, confirmed by checkuser. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2025 (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.

Mast303, I know "indefinite" feels like "forever" when it's happened to you, and it feels like a timed block would be a mercy, but "indefinite" just means "until the editor can convince an admin to lift the block". Unfortunately that admin isn't going to be me, at least not right now. I'm really concerned about Draft:Anti-Israel sentiment among youth in the United States, which I got to before Drmies blocked you. It's one thing to not understand how copyright works. But it's really quite another to create and submit that draft, on an obviously contentious topic, with that kind of wording. The admin attending to this unblock request may want to consider a conditional unblock, perhaps with a topic ban from US politics or new article creation. -- asilvering (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting an arbitrary end date on the block does nothing in terms of you showing us that you understand the reasons for the block and won't repeat them. I agree with Asilvering that part of being unblocked will probably involve a topic ban(which can later be appealed) from post-1992 US politics and maybe the Arab-Israeli conflict. You'll also need to demonstrate that you know how to handle an editing dispute without edit warring, and show that you understand how to avoid copyright violations. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you suggest a topic ban? Most of my edit warring is not recent, and the one recent incident was not related to any of those topics. Mast303 (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I stated my reason above. It's just my opinion, maybe someone else will give you a better deal. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mast303, the draft I specifically mentioned is related to both US politics and the Arab-Israeli conflict. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a copyright issue, and there are no other major instances of disruption in either of those topic areas. Mast303 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mast303, administrators are able to see the text of deleted articles. -- asilvering (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been disruptive since the very beginning; I have made numerous constructive edits as well, and most of my disruptive edits were early when my account was new. Also, most of my disruption has not been in US politics. If you disagree, provide multiple recent diffs.

I now understand the copyright policy and that copying content is not allowed. I created both of those articles before being warned. Mast303 (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

-- zzuuzz (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See "second unblock request". Mast303 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Block

[edit]

Why have I been blocked for "Disruptive editing: edit warring, ongoing incompetence in editing and producing copyright violations, refusal to acknowledge and communicate."? I don't agree with the last sentence (Refusal to acknowledge and communicate) Mast303 (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Drmies on this, as blocking admin. -- asilvering (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a page full of warnings, notes, and comments here to which you never said a thing until you got blocked. User talk:Mast303/Archive 2 is another such page--deletion of test pages, abandoned drafts, a note from User:asilvering about a rejected draft that you then resubmitted anyway, no edit summaries, contentious topics, a disagreement over a close, adding commentary, unsourced content--I could go on, and I think you gave two responses on that entire talk page. So I think my point is made: this is a collaborative environment, and you are expected to respond and engage. Drmies (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention creating articles that were previously deleted multiple times—most recently creating a Test2 article. Because the user has been using Wikipedia for over 3 years, I’d say this is vandalism. Cinaroot (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not vandalism - only three recent instances of disruption - two copyright issues (before warning) and one war. and I ended the war with a reliable source. Mast303 (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said "vandalism", and you are deflecting: you didn't address my points. Now, as asilvering indicated below, you do not need to address my point to me--I won't be the admin who looks at your unblock request. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies, @Asilvering: I did respond to some of the notices and concerns. I definitely did not respond to every single warning. I think this block is excessive because my disruption is not so long-term - I had a period from March 2023 - April 2025 where almost all my edits were good. Also, a topic ban would not be appropriate because most of my disruption is not confined to one topic area.
I have been blocked for edit warring, but recently, I only got close to WP:3RR on the page Start school later movement - and I added a reliable source the second time I did it. Also, see my updated unblock request. Mast303 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're both involved, so really the person you want to "talk to" is whichever uninvolved admin arrives to handle the unblock request. Arguing with the admins who took the admin actions against you in the first place tends to be counterproductive, for many reasons. One is that it makes you look argumentative, which doesn't give the responding admin a good first impression. Another is that each edit to this page makes it "current" again in CAT:RFU. An admin looking for the people who have been left waiting the longest won't notice your request is one of them if the most recent user edit is too recent. (For that reason, please feel free to reply to this message, just to say "ok" or whatever, so you, rather than an admin, show up as the most recent editor.) -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mast303 (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look through your edit history, I notice a lot of reverted edits, though going back a few weeks, most of them don't stand out too much. However, as a longer-term user, I am concerned about your decision to add "domestic terrorist" to the lead sentence of an article when nothing in the article described the subject as a domestic terrorist [1]. I'm also confused by the number of edits you make to WP:Sandbox and User talk:Sandbox, including this weird edit. Can you speak to any of these? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox is a test space. I sometimes use the sandbox to test correct use of templates or test big modifications to avoid disrupting an actual article. Mast303 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"A lot of reverted edits" just means the edits might be controversial, not that they are bad per se. Mast303 (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"30/500" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect 30/500 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 30 § 30/500 until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete!" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Delete! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 4 § Delete! until a consensus is reached. CutlassCiera 15:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Delete? has also been listed, as an addition to the entry for Delete!. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 22:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second unblock request

[edit]
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).

Mast303 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I use a shared IP address range. Those are not my accounts! I have only used ONE account!

Decline reason:

You are unequivocally socking per Zzuuzz's comment above. Declined. Izno (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2025 (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.

I find it useful to take that kind of thing into consideration before taking any action. It turns out you share many IP addresses with those users across different ranges, in addition to the same interests, editing times, and some other factors. Still, if you're going to deny it you're welcome to a second opinion... -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

zzuuzz, I notice those accounts have been blocked by a variety of admins, including an earlier catch by a CU - are these linked to a known extant master, or is this the first time anyone's linked them all like this? -- asilvering (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at their block logs, they each appear to have a single entry, with the reason for some of them not being about socks, and some of them do not even edit suspiciously. I personally have only ever used this account (Mast303) and I did not evade my block. As for why I should be unblocked, see my previous reason.
Also, most of them are disruption-only accounts (one has an oversighted edit), so it could be another user in my same region and ISP. Mast303 (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of anything pre-dating the above-mentioned disruption. Checkuser blocks you mention were within the past 24 hours, and there are several possible explanations about that question. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering @Zzuuzz the Cinderella impersonation may make this user Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HawkNightingale175. Izno (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not apparently from the data side. Well, Cinderella must just be that popular. Izno (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not socking. It is another person(s) on my IP address range. I have also noticed disruptive anonymous contributions from my range. How do I get unblocked? I am getting affected by other disruptive editor(s) on my range.
Why am I being treated like a sock? My edits are not even that similar to those users - I have not recently made edits so bad as the ones - and I understand the policies that those accounts broke. I personally only have one account.
Do I need to talk to my ISP? Mast303 (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are being treated like a sock because two separate checkusers have looked at the technical and behavioural data and concluded that you are operating multiple accounts. This is usually not a determination based on IP information alone. I can't tell you what that information was or how it implicated you because I can't see it, and they can't tell you because doing so is against our policies. You can call in another checkuser by opening another unblock request. If you have some reasonably good narrative that fits the data they have that could explain why you appear to be operating multiple accounts, you may want to try. Otherwise it's highly unlikely to get you anywhere.
If this truly is your only account, hard luck. Whether you've used multiple accounts or not, the best way forward for you is probably the standard offer. -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other accounts are not me - they don’t even edit like me and they are very disruptive for the most part. I think a range block might be a better solution to stop further accounts creation which would get me accused of sock puppetry and possibly get me banned. Note that I have been editing for 3 years. Mast303 (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing with me, or the checkusers who have already responded, will not get you anywhere, for the reasons I've already said. I've told you what your two options are. They're the only ones you have. -- asilvering (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock No. 3

[edit]
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).

Mast303 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet. Those are not actually my accounts. I have only one account and the accounts listed probably belong to other people who share my range. They are all disruptive and I have noticed logged out disruption on my IP address. As for the original concern, see my first request.

If I edit again, I plan to focus on less controversial topics. Mast303 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We can only go by a balance of evidence. The technical evidence against you is strong, and your denial and explanation do not outweigh this technical evidence. PhilKnight (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2025 (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.

Unblock No. 4

[edit]
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).

Mast303 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was originally blocked almost two months ago. Later, a checkuser said I was abusing multiple accounts. However, I should be unblocked. For edit warring, see first unblock request. Most recent edit warring (3RR) was well over 2 years ago. Copyright infringement: I copied material by mistake, and I got a warning, stopped the behavior, and got blocked. I am sorry for violating copyright. I understand it is a serious legal issue, and I won't do it again. In fact, I almost self-reverted.

The checkuser said I have used sockpuppets. But actually, I use a shared IP the accounts belong to other user(s) on my IP range. Sometimes I edit from my phone and I got autoblocked twice. The listed accounts are not even similar to me - and as an experienced user, I know not to vandalize. I have not used multiple accounts - it may look like it due to shared IPs. If I get unblocked, I will be more constructive and be careful about copyright when creating articles. I will also edit with a more neutral point of view.

Decline reason:

I do not find the unblock request convincing. Recommend building a productive history elsewhere and considering the SO as asilvering mentioned back in June. Star Mississippi 13:42, 26 July 2025 (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.

Just noting that Special:Diff/1298779718 was "accidentally" made. I have no opinion on how that reflects on the unblock request. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't always check the top right corner while editing. I am almost always logged in though. Mast303 (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How long will it take for other admins to get here? Mast303 (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've already made three unblocks requests, you've seen the response times. But it's certainly not helping that you keep editing this page. Anyone rummaging through the bin looking for the unblocks that have been waiting the longest won't find yours, since you keep bumping it with newer timestamps. -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated request. Mast303 (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mast303 I have received your email but believe conversations should happen on Wiki. Please read Wikipedia:Standard offer which @Asilvering also linked you to. Star Mississippi 01:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Distinguish-other

[edit]

Template:Distinguish-other has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Offer

[edit]

I'm taking the standard offer.

Standard Offer

[edit]

Mast303 (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mast303 I don't get it how did you edit in 2026? Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 08:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, 22 Feb 2026. There's usually some good faith allowance if someone asks a few days too early or something, but WP:OFFER says no edit. Given that you've made many edits and unblock requests since the indefinite block and the checkuser, and the ample evidence of sockpuppetry, I would advise you, in your best interest, to not even think about making another edit until even a minute before six months after your last one.
If anything, I would counsel you to spend far more than six months away, and edit at other Wikimedia projects in the meantime, none of which you are blocked from. The six months is the bare minimum, and editing constructively elsewhere could demonstrate to admins that you're able to return as a constructive editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]