User talk:Monart

October 2014[edit]

Monart, your persistent WP:BLP violations and your combative response to advice, especially your recent posts in this ANI thread show that you don't understand Wikipedia policy and have no wish to learn. Therefore, I'm afraid you have to be blocked from editing. I have blocked you indefinitely. 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 21:23, 21 October 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I made a huge mistake when editing here with a combative response to advice. Now, after some time of thinking about the results, I have felt that you were right blocking my account and I have come to terms and understand how Wikipedia really works. I deeply regret my behaviour and I apoligize to the persons involved. I will do my best to avoid violations in the future. Monart (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm prepared to unblock you with the condition of a complete ban in regard to editing or commenting on BLP content, however, I'm disinclined to unblock you without conditions. PhilKnight (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2014 (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.

@Bishonen:- would you object to an unblock? Also, if unblocked, do you think an editing restriction - such as a ban on editing biographies of living persons - would be appropriate? PhilKnight (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Certainly it's to the user's credit that he requests unblock rather than <WP:BEANS violation removed>. But I remain worried about how he behaved, most especially about the profound incomprehension of what kind of sourcing is needed here. Undertaking not to be so combative is nice, but does he understand about sourcing now? If not, then he absolutely shouldn't be let loose on BLPs. So, yes, I think a ban on BLPs (including BLP-related content on all pages) is a good idea. Once he has demonstrated a ability to source properly when adding other type of material, and/or to ask advice when he's uncertain about it, he could appeal the ban. Feel free to unblock, and I'd appreciate it if you keep an eye out. Bishonen | talk 17:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Monart:- would you be willing to accept an unblock condition of a complete ban of editing biographies of living persons, editing article content on other articles which relates to living persons, and making comments about living persons on other pages? PhilKnight (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PhilKnight, I dont know really what to say because biographies are one of my specialities. Most or many of my edits are about living persons. There should be no problem as I know how to cooperate now because I want to learn. Take it easy and dont worry. Regards. Monart (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what are the issues with these edits? [1], [2], [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits in Aecio Neves: this information I have from Brazilien newspapers. Concerning the edits of Alvaro Sobrinho: I assume that the person itself has written the article about himself, so when editing at that time, I wanted to point out that the reality looks a little bit different. I should have discussed it on the disc. Monart (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these answers I do not think you should be editing BLP's. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of which reasons? I dont understand. Could you explain better? Monart (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you cannot tell what is an acceptable source for a BLP, cannot accurately pull out info from a source, and think that discussion would somehow justified your edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not asked to tell what is an acceptable source here. Or was I, and where? I was asked about the issue of these 3 mentioned edits, which I explained why I did it that way at that time. This is past. Today I think different. And that I explained. So what now? How do we move from here? I expect more and better justifications for blocking biographies. For me it seems that you have set a trap for me here. I do not agree with your arguments and the way I am chased by 3 administrators here. I am too long writing for Wikipedia and I have never been blocked for these reasons. So please dont take me for a beginner. Monart (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

previous unblock request has not yet ended because did not for result. Monart (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm declining this unblock appeal for two reasons. First, it's incomprehensible. I don't mean that as an insult, I simply can't understand what it is you're trying to say. The second reason I'm declining to unblock your account is that, based on the conversation above, I don't believe you understand why your edits are disruptive and therefore the concerns regarding your edits to biography articles will continue to arise should you be allowed to edit, which would be detrimental to the encyclopedia and the living subjects we are trying to protect. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you do not treat me fairly enough. I have explained that my "disruptive" edits are past. Do you understand what the word past means? How can you judge me now for something which lies in the future. Have I not explained that I apologize and I made a mistake? Will you understand now and will you reply to these questions now? I am expecting a clear answer otherwise I must say you have built a trap here for me. Monart (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

This block is in fact not any more necessary and it violates Wikipedia blocking policy. The block is no longer necessary because I understand for which reasons I have been blocked for and I will not do it again. In the future I will make productive contributions as I did thousands of times in the past. Monart (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You say "I understand for which reasons I have been blocked". However, you were given links to three of your edits, and invited to explain what was wrong with them. You gave an answer which showed quite clearly that you have no idea what was wrong with them. Since then, you have edited this page eight more times, and in any one of those edits you could have explained what you think was wrong with those edits, but you did not do so. Unless and until you can not just tell us that you understand why you were blocked, but actually show us that you understand, you are not likely to be unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2014 (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.

Proposed deletion of Khorasan group[edit]

The article Khorasan group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:OR, just an alleged group, no evidence the group ever really existed, created by a sockpuppet.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Khorasan group for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Khorasan group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khorasan group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]