Hello, AdhiOK, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

May 2020 edit

  Hello, I'm Ost316. I noticed that you recently removed content from Brown Bag Films Home Entertainment without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ost (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brown Bag Films Home Entertainment (May 24) 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 Sulfurboy was: 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 when they have been resolved.
Sulfurboy (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
 
Hello, AdhiOK! Having an article 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! Sulfurboy (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brown Bag Films Home Entertainment (May 25) 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 Majavah was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 when they have been resolved.
 Majavah talk · edits 16:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: 9 Story Home Entertainment (May 25) 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 GoingBatty was: 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 when they have been resolved.
GoingBatty (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Warner Bros. Global Kids, Young Adults and Classics (May 27) 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 Dan arndt was: 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 when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sockpuppet investigation edit

 

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdhiOK, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

PrussianOwl (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

May 2020 edit

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Columbia Tristar Animation Studios, you may be blocked from editing. PrussianOwl (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for September 22 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Street Fighter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

How to stop a user from making false edits edit

Is there anyway to stop user 174.253.65.34 from continuing to undo and revert the edits done by many so that the false information he keeps setting it back to can be stopped? This Wiki has been factual and correct for years until now.. but the mad man keeps going in and reverting the page back to false information 2 or 3 times a day now no matter who changes it back and he's been doing it for months.

I am referring to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Archive_Collection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8A20:5530:AC8E:950C:FD47:7B06 (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message edit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

See also sections edit

Is there a particular reason that you keep ignoring the WP:NOTSEEALSO guidelines by adding links that are already used in the Peacock (streaming service) and Paramount+ articles to their "See also" sections? Per the guideline, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". It would be easier on all of us if you would stop doing this to any article. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Blanking somebody else's sandbox edit

Why would you blank User:Erry query/sandbox? What is wrong with it? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

April 2021 edit

  Hello, I'm Hakken. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Fortnite Creative, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hakken (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

May 2021 edit

  Hello, I'm Uncle Dick. I noticed that you recently removed content from News Corporation without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Uncle Dick (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Category:MotorStorm, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify this for you. Codemasters did not buy Evolution Studios, they only hired the staff. Codemasters does not own Evolution Therefore Electronic Arts doesn't. Evolution is closed but still 100% owned by Sony. It was misreported by a number of news outlets at the time, but Codemasters are on record (see article) explicitly stating that they only hired the staff. - X201 (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Warner Bros. Global Kids, Young Adults and Classics has been accepted edit

 
Warner Bros. Global Kids, Young Adults and Classics, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please be careful edit

Your editing at TvOne (Indonesian TV network) and ANTV are borderline edit warring (see Wikipedia:Edit warring). I'm bringing this up in order to help you avoid problems. I see that you are reverting an IP that is insistent on their version of the content. The proper way to combat this is to discuss the alternatives on the article talk page and determine what the consensus version is. Having reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources) that support your content is going to make a lot of difference in talk page discussion. I fully understand from past experience that on occasion people making edits are doing so with less than honorable intentions. Nevertheless, one must make an effort at discussion so that, hopefully, the other party will respond positively and the project can benefit. Consider neutrally worded messages to any Wikiprojects that are listed on the articles' talk pages to bring more editors to the discussion. Always make an effort to avoid the problems described at Wikipedia:Canvassing when leaving requests for help. Let me know if you have any questions. Tiderolls 15:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

June 2021 edit

  Hello, I'm GPL93. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:14.1.217.198 that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

June 2021 edit

 

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. GPL93 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

 
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism. 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 ~~~~}}.  Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 17 June 2021 (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).

AdhiOK (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

This block is wrong and unfairly.... I only hate anyone adding any fake news on Wikipedia

Decline reason:

You added a vulgarity laden post on an IP user talk page; this violates WP:CIVIL and means that the block is correct. As such, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2021 (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.

July 2021 edit

  Hello, I'm Liz. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Zsukiman that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

AdhiOK, furthermore, I have reverted a number of edits you made that were reverting Zsukiman. When reverting an edit that is not clearly vandalism (which these edits weren't), please use a clear edit summary. Otherwise, other editors have no idea whether you were right or wrong to revert. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

August 2021 edit

I'm removing the final warning because, quite frankly, I can't tell what's going on at that page. But removing mass blocks of content without explanation doesn't work here. Please start leaving edit summaries and communicating with other editors. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

AdhiOK, I just saw this pop up on my watchlist, and realized I have this page watchlisted because I gave you a similar bit of advice in the above section. So to reiterate, please use summaries when reverting edits that aren't vandalism. It saves everyone else a lot of time trying to figure out why you made a revert. If you continue to not use an edit summary during reverts, this can be seen as disruptive editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

September 2021 edit

  Hello, I'm DaxServer. I noticed that you recently removed content from Talk:Dragan Andrić without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Allahabad#RFC - Discussion about name change of the article. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello AdhiOK. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Jaring Data Interaktif, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:AdhiOK. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=AdhiOK|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. scope_creepTalk 20:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jakarta Stock Exchange bombing, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Davidelit (Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
14:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

New message from JalenFolf edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Icecreamland and disruptive unsourced editing. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for September 29 edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liga 2 (Indonesia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kampar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 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 Timtrent was: 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 when they have been resolved.
FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Are You Indonesian? edit

Are You Indonesian? RickRalli Backup (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm Indonesian.... AdhiOK (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message edit

 Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Removing talk page messages is fine edit

Hi AdhiOK, removing talk page messages, including block notifications, from one's own talk page is fine. The exception at WP:UP#CMT is about declined unblock requests of a still-active block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is, for example, about Special:Diff/1067231406. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Polytron (electronics) (January 29) 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 Nyanardsan were: 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 when they have been resolved.
Nyanardsan (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for February 3 edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TUDN (brand), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wade Davis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: IDX Channel (March 14) 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 DoubleGrazing was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 when they have been resolved.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

ANI notice edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Paramount Global Content Licensing. Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please stay civil in edit summaries edit

The situation at Paramount Global Content Licensing got brought to my attention in part because of this edit summary of yours. You should invite the user to discuss the situation at the talk page and do so civilly. (Also, heads-up, there's a WP:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents thread about it.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

March 2022 edit

  Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Paramount Global Content Licensing. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not Broken edit

Given much of your recent edits, I think you should read and be aware of WP:NOTBROKEN with regards to links. Canterbury Tail talk 15:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Putting back Foxtel Group site edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foxtel&type=revision&diff=1078934094&oldid=1078919298

The Foxtel Group site is the site for the Foxtel company, which is what the Wiki page is about. Foxtel is one of the company's brands.

I've added the link back. --202.56.44.51 (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Be careful edit

Please be careful of using edit summaries like "SHUT UP". I understand it's easy to get frustrated with problem users, but we need to remain civil. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Canterbury Tail 192.76.8.70 AdhiOK (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Is that supposed to mean something? BilCat (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Also, users are allowed to remove warnings. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
They've been told that before on this talk page, along with a warning on being civil in edit summaries from User:C.Fred. Yet their behavior doesn't seem to be improving at all. BilCat (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. AdhiOK, you really need to straighten out your conduct and not worry about other peoples. You are perilously close to a block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Additionally you really, really need to read WP:VANDALISM and especially WP:NOTVANDALISM to learn what vandalism is. If you continue to call other editors edits vandalism, when they're clearly good faith edits, you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 13:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • This thread was closed without action, but the WP:CIR issues continue. Most recently, reverting the removal of a warning with the edit summary "SHUT UP." In fact I see no purpose to their edits on that talk page at all. As you are familiar, I'd like to hear from you. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
    In retrospect, I should've given a warning to AdhiOK for incivility about that editsummary. AdhiOK: please calm down the messages that you leave to other users, whether on talk pages or in edit summaries. Also read WP:BLANKING: users may remove warnings from their user talk pages. (They may not alter messages left by others, though; that's a different matter.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for the ping. Hm. AdhiOK, if you continue to revert the legitimate removal of messages from users' own talk pages (WP:UP#CMT), you will probably be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. Same for repeated invicility.
    Please avoid disruptively ignoring community concerns about your edits; ideally, you should reply to others' concerns with understandable messages before continuing to edit. You are not strictly required to do so every time, but if talk page messages fail to have an effect on your editing behavior, there's not much left than blocking to enforce compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It should normally be in every user's interest to read and understand others' concerns; Special:Diff/1079620437 is weird. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
    @C.Fred, Canterbury Tail, ToBeFree, and Deepfriedokra: Now rather than falsely accusing other editors of vandalism they've resorted to falsely accusing other editors of hoaxing. This revert of an IP fixing a formatting error as a "Hoax" is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen [1]. I am of the opinion that this editor has not learned anything from the ANI thread and still has disruptive WP:CIR problems. I really don't think that the ANI thread should have been left to be archived with no action. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • @C.Fred, Canterbury Tail, and ToBeFree: Recommend a WP:CIR block to give user time to take in our rules and culture. Don't know for how long. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
    They've been editing for over 2 years and have nearly 15k edits. Looking through the edits it seems to be mostly WP:OWN behavior, false edit summaries for reverts, and other disruptive editing, with a sprinkle of reasonable edits. If anyone paid attention to the lists of television and movie companies they would be indeffed by now. Any block should be indefinite until they can illustrate that they understand the issues with their editing and can communicate effectively. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree with my illustrious multinational vegetable friend above. They exhibit massive OWN behaviours and do everything they accuse others of doing, adding info without sources, random changes, and now hoax accusations which they clearly don’t know the meaning of. I’m down for an indefinite so they have to communicate and explain to the community why they should be allowed to have their editing privileges back. Canterbury Tail talk 11:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
In fact since they’re still continuing I’ve gone ahead and done it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
When I spoke of time to reflect, I meant more than 20 minutes. More like six months. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

April 2022 edit

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Rodrigo franck, you may be blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do you know, I just got frustrated with him because he neglecting those warning for him.... AdhiOK (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The irony is astounding. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
"Irony is so ironic." BilCat (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Blocked edit

 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.
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 ~~~~}}.

Until you can demonstrate to the community in an unblock request why you should have editing privileges on Wikipedia, with your disruption, ignoring warnings, accusing others of vandalism and hoaxes, making unsourced edits (and then reverting other editors good faith unsourced edits for being unsourced) OWN behaviour, and a sheer lack of competence and respect for other editors and our policies and more, you are blocked from editing. I suggest you think long and hard about how you’re going to phrase your unblock request. Canterbury Tail talk 11:57, 2 April 2022 (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).

AdhiOK (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I promise I wouldn't do it again....

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. Yamla (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2022 (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.

Well if that’s your definition of having thought long and hard, this will be short. Canterbury Tail talk 12:02, 2 April 2022 (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).

AdhiOK (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

This block is incorrect.... I've just got been frustrated by another problem users like me which you've been accusing.... And don't forget I've also making any useful contributions on several articles in Wikipedia.....

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. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:22, 2 April 2022 (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.

AdhiOK (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Polytron (electronics) (April 4) edit

 
Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by DGG were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: adverrtising. Do not resubmit.
DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sockpuppet investigation edit

  You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdhiOK. Thank you. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/120.188.37.200 edit

  Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/120.188.37.200, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/120.188.37.200 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/120.188.37.200 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: IDX Channel (June 11) 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 S0091 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.
S0091 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C edit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply