User talk:IceFrappe

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, IceFrappe. Thank you for your work on Nuri al-Mismari. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for writing the article! Keep writing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing Muammar Qaddafi for a period of one week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is a unjustified block and frankly an insult to good-faith mainspace contributors. Through extensive research across English, French, Arabic sources, I began the ambitious and painstaking process of writing/improving Muammar Gaddafi and other Libya-related articles about a month ago, including single-handedly creating Bashir Saghir Hawadi, Tayeb El-Safi, Mustafa Kharoubi, Ali Kanna, Abdel Moneim al-Houni, Mohammed Najm, among others. I edited quietly with no issue for more than 3 weeks with no incident and took great care not to remove previously existed content until User:Midnightblueowl took issue with the length of the Gaddafi article (not the quality of my writing and sources). A discussion ensued and User:Horse Eye's Back created Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi and Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi in order to shorten the main Gaddafi article with my support. During the discussion, I also raised the issue of the Gaddafi article relying too much on one single 1987 book written by 2 journalists and proposed including a wider range of diverse sources. Discussion was civil and a compromise was seemingly reached until hours ago when User:Aman.kumar.goel began unilaterally removing massive amount of content from the Gaddafi article without any discussion. Attempts at discussion quickly led to him engaging in name-calling, baselessly accused of me "disruption" while misrepresenting the position of Midnightblueowl (whose only concern was length). I reported him to the edit warring noticeboard after he made 4 reverts in a short span of time. I have yet to receive a response there, yet I've already gotten blocked by an admin with zero warning or communication whatsoever from the blocking admin. The blocking admin falsely stated in the blocking summary that I violated WP:OWN for a month, but the reality was no one took any issue with my contribution until Midnightblueowl 8 days ago and his concern was length. I also did not object to Horse Eye's back removing content from the Gaddafi article and moving them to the newly-created Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi and Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi in late February. I have facts on my side. I have shown the ability to compromise and collaborate with others; he has not. I have spent hours and hours improving this article; his only interest is in mass removal (he has yet to write a single sentence to the Gaddafi article). Is this really the way Wikipedia treat mainspace article writers? IceFrappe (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In reviewing this request and the article talk page, I believe the reason for the block is correct. You need to tone down your attitude a bit. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2023 (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.

Warning[edit]

I know it's a shock to be blocked, and people tend to lash out when they are. It's understandable, and I have a high tolerance level for blocked editors who attack others, especially when they criticize the blocking admin. But that does not mean you can get away with this kind of thing, where you say to your opponent (i. e. not to the blocking admin): Your only interest is destroying the article. Some people make things. You break things. That's the difference between mainspace article writers and wikilawyers. That's outrageous. If you attack AKG or anybody else in such a way again, I'll change your page block into a site block. Bishonen | tålk 09:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]