Belregard

January 2023

Hi Belregard! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Adventure game that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. You removed quite a significant amount of text from said article, and of those recent edits, a few were incorrectly marked as minor edits. You orphaned several named–reference tags in the process, which I shall fix for you. Your contributions are welcome, but please make sure you are editing accurately. Thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Belregard. I've noticed that you have made recent strides to clean up the article Adventure game. This is not a warning, but advice based on observation. Please don't rely on bots to fix citations broken by content removal. I also noticed that you retyped an unsourced statement from the Deadline (video game) article. Without an inline citation, the claim reads as puffery (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch). I've trimmed the text down to just the essential information, and tagged the corresponding statement at the originating article. An article's lede does not usually need a citation if the claim is verified later in the body. In this case it's unsourced; likely correct, but propped up with puffery. Again, thank you very much for your continuing good work. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Noted and acknowledged. Which citations were broken? Belregard (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

See Special:PageHistory/Adventure game. For a Wikipedia overview of page history, see Help:Page history. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I will try to be more aware of not removing citations solely dependent on content I remove. Belregard (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Further editing the Adventure Games page, I was attempting to remove a reference, but it appears I am unsure of how to do so. I clicked on the "Edit Source" link next to references, but upon searching for the source to remove, I was unable to find it. Am I missing something? Belregard (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Which reference are you trying to remove from which section (using wiki markup editing)? If a <ref> tag is defined with the name= parameter elsewhere in the article, then you may only see the tag in the section you were looking at, and not the citation template assigned to it. In such a circumstance, it's better to view the entire article's source and use your browser's "Find" feature, rather than just the section you wish to change. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies, I will be mindful in the future. Belregard (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be new here. Rather than creating a new section, you can reply to a comment by indentation. Write your reply directly below the appropriate comment, and precede it with a colon, e.g. : Your reply. ~~~~, adding more colons as necessary. If you need help, you can contact another editor such as myself, or add {{Help me}} at the top of a new section on your talk page (see instructions in the template doc). The best way to learn is by doing, and many editors are here to help. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Belregard (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!

Here, enjoy some cookies!

Hi Belregard! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Appeal for clemency - My edits were non-disruptive, in good-faith, and added to the overall well-being and accuracy of the article. When they were noticed for lacking citations, direct game manual citations were provided. When edits were constituted as unnecessary, they remained removed. Belregard (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm going to take this as an appeal on the basis of an incorrect block, rather than an appeal for literal "clemency", given the nature of the full appeal. The warnings on your talk page being removed is fine, but their existence is indicative of an ongoing issue. More generally, it's not merely your edits to articles that are the issue. You make an incorrect claim that more edits of the same style by Ferret would constitute harassment, as well as calling an editor irrelevant within a discussion, accusations that said editor was canvassed to the discussion etc. All of this constitutes a huge case of WP:BATTLEGROUND, "I don't hear this", personal attacks (using civil language will not make an unsupported accusation civil) and ultimately disruptive - so your future appeal will need to address all these aspects (that is, both content and on-content disruption) to be successful. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

---

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 patrol should look at the dozen removed warnings in the history this talk page, as well as their responses to my warnings at my talk page. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I personally endorse the block. This editor has a bad WP:IDHT attitude. I gave them a very simple bit of advice about how their accusations were incorrect, and they repeatedly attempted to correct me with false information. I'm sympathetic to new editors who are struggling to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia, but they don't appear open to learning or collaborating. There was no reason to be belligerent to me, who had had zero involvement in any of their past disputes. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I am allowed to remove warnings within my talk page after they have been reviewed. Furthermore, SergeCross73 is mistaken. It appears he was signaled by his friend and/or confidant Ferret, along with Bbb23, in order to silence me in a discussion on his talk page, which appears to be personally motivated. None of my edits constitute disruption. All my posts within that talk page were civil, and polite, with no abusive language being used at any user. Belregard (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

...I have ferret's talk page on my watchlist. I commonly field questions and comments that arise there. Very routine stuff. But this response does a pretty good job at illustrating what I was getting at in my comment above. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide citations for how I refused to follow wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Belregard (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Ferret has already mentioned and linked to his talk page above. You and I don't have any other interactions besides that and this very conversation. Any assertions I've made are fully contained between these two discussions. I have nothing more to say on the matter - the rest is between you and any potential unblocking admin. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

"Ferret has already mentioned and linked to his talk page above. You and I don't have any other interactions besides that and this very conversation. Any assertions I've made are fully contained between these two discussions." - Thank you. I appreciate your endorsement for lacking abuse of the wikipedia guidelines. As per the blocking basis on "personal attacks", all potentially unblocking admins can see I personally attacked no one. Notifying an editor of potential suspicions of bad-faith activity do not induce the status of a personal attack, nor do I have a previous history of interacting with Ferret, or Sergecross73. I believe it is plainly evidenced that this indefinite block lacks grounds and should be dismissed. Belregard (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Appeal for unblock on the grounds of an incorrect block - My accusations were based entirely on a seemingly double-standard induced administratorship of multiple articles, due to an enforcement of notices signifying a lack of sources for the articles I recently edited, but with no notices signifying a lack of sources before I had edited them. I personally hold no hatred, grudges, malice, or ill-will towards any of the administrators, and wish to see wikipedia functioning to its fullest. I also took Ferret's advice and supplied links to verifiable and solid sources such as direct game manuals, showing that I also acted accordingly with his advice, nor did I submit a grievance against Ferret due to the acceptance of the fact that he was not acting in bad faith. My comments towards Sargecross73 was acknowledgement of his participation, which while dismissive, were in accordance with stating the fact that should I have submitted a grievance, then his comments in particular were irrelevant, unless I am mistaken. I do not personally view my comments as attacks. With that being said, if my claims of harassment/double-standards are deemed incorrect, then I will gladly accept that they are incorrect and move on. I believe it should also be considered under the WP:BITE guidelines that my responses on the talk page should have first been given a warning for them being "disruptive", rather than a site-wide block. Belregard (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block is not incorrect. You have a path forward, but not if you claim the block was simply incorrect. Yamla (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

---

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

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Appeal for unblock on the grounds that it is no longer necessary. As previously stated, I am aware that the reason for my block was due to another editor taking offense of my comments regarding their involvement in a discussion. I do not have any malice or hatred towards Sergecross73 and will not pursue the topic further, nor, as previously stated, do I still hold such accusations against ferret. I will be more meticulous in making sure that my comments in future discussions do not arouse combativeness. Belregard (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"As previously stated, I am aware that the reason for my block was due to another editor taking offense of my comments regarding their involvement in a discussion."

"I will be more meticulous in making sure that my comments in future discussions do not arouse combativeness."

Per these comments, I do not believe you actually understand why you are blocked.

Blaming your behavior on others isn't going to work here. Please see the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL^{Query Me!} 17:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

---

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.