User talk:CentipedeBrows

File:Information orange.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at :Mullah Omar. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

:Tartan, seemingly, you believe democracy is overrated. You labeling the edits as "unconstructive" and as "vandalism" is per definition subjective in the extreme. Moreover, it seems that you would like to bow down to the whim of what can only be described as de-facto terrorists. I quote

:"The current picture is the one the Taliban have [https://newlinesmag.com/newsletter/the-taliban-still-depend-on-mullah-omars-legacy/ chosen to use]. The one you are suggesting is also of pretty poor quality, so I would prefer not to change it. It has typically been Wikipedia practice to go with an image preferred by the subject when one is available."

:You are quite literally, in your own words, siding with the Taliban? @Khestwol props to you for calling @Tartan357 out on this. I will share it on various other sites such as Reddit as well. Let's see if we can call Wikipedia out on this. It's absurd that they're covering for the Taliban and even legitimizing them. CentipedeBrows (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

::Blanking the infobox for no reason is vandalism, and I stand behind that. Don't do that. Also, do not falsely accuse me of supporting the Taliban. That is a personal attack that will get you blocked if you repeat it again. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

:::I will make the exact same edits with sources once again, because everything written was factually correct. I look forward to hearing from you then. CentipedeBrows (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm Tartan357. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person{{spaces|1}}on :Abdul Qahar Balkhi, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

:I quite literally wrote in my edit comment that the comments I made were an extension of citations used! And per Wiki customs, I didn't cite the same source twice. I'm an academic of pretty high stature, so I know how to make proper edits in accordance with APA 7 guidelines. Please change it back, or address my edit comment. I very clearly fleshed out on the article by New Zealand's largest news media, Stuff! CentipedeBrows (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdul_Qahar_Balkhi&diff=1088172793&oldid=1088166706 This edit] added content without a source. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

:::Hello @Tartan357 I noticed that even my new edits are being removes on the Taliban representative's page. How so? No one is commenting on it, but removing it without notice despite me listening to your feedback... CentipedeBrows (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent editing history at :Abdul Qahar Balkhi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PRAXIDICAE💕 22:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

:Okay. Just to clarify, I do not intend to continue revering, and I only edited it because no one commented on my edits, but simply removed them at a whim. CentipedeBrows (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{tlx|Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

}} ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

:Hello @Tartan357. I have responded to your allegations on the noticeboard. Feel free to comment CentipedeBrows (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Vandalism, personal attacks, off-wiki threat from User:CentipedeBrows. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

:Hello @Tartan357. I have responded to your allegations on the noticeboard. Feel free to comment. CentipedeBrows (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|reason=Dear admins. Upon reading the Wiki guidelines, I now realize why I was blocked and that I should have reacted differently. If I knew better, I would do better. That is on me. As it stands, I hope you realize that the block is no longer necessary since I will not make any further disruptive edits. If an admin ever comments on an edit I make, I'll act accordingly right away rather than initiate a discussion. Finally, I hope that I will be allowed to contribute to Wikipedia once again. It is an important website and the people that contribute as well as admins are its backbone. Thanks for your great work, admins.|decline=Like most unblock requests that simply rephrase the instructions, this is very vague. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed |1=Dear admins. To be completely specific, I can now see that you have decided to accept the exact edit I was attempting to make to the page of "Mullah Omar." I do not know what prompted you to change your mind nor does it matter any more. I will not attempt to make any more edits to his page regardless as noted early. I believe I are referring to the exact issue at heart since I will not make any disruptive edits. I do not believe I am vague, since I have also commented on the exact edits that lead tot his ban, which Wikipedia now have accepted.CentipedeBrows (talk) 8:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) |decline = You clearly do not undertand why you were blocked. You have in no way dealt wit the issues raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1098#Vandalism, personal attacks, off-wiki threat from User:CentipedeBrows The threat to recruit support off-Wiki to harass a user you disagreed with makes you NOTCOMPATIBLE with a collaborative project. Your totally bizarre accusation of someone supporting the Taliban for disagreeing with your edit makes you not compatible as well. To be clear, it is not the proposed content that led to your block. It was your approach to the WP:CONTENTDISPUTE Because your proposed edit was later accepted, you feel vindicated in your approach. That is not correct. Content disputes are inevitable on a project of this scope. You clearly have no idea how to resolve disputes. Hint-- it is not WP:EDITWARring and it is not threatening to seek support on Reddit and it is not making ad hominem personal attacks. You say you will not make any disruptive edits, but you do not consider the edits that led to your block disruptive. It has been proposed that a WP:TOPICBAN would be the remedy. I disagree. That would simply shove the problem of your inability to collaboratively resolve disagreements into another part of the project. Aside from the proposed topic ban, Tartan357 makes good points below. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)]]}}

:This demonstrates a lack of understanding of why you were blocked. You were not blocked for changing the picture in that article (which was a copyright violation when you did it, BTW), you were blocked for threatening to WP:BRIGADE, accusing editors of supporting the Taliban, and making non-neutral edits to Taliban biographies (and edit-warring over them), even during the ANI discussion. That said, for any reviewing admin, I think a topic ban from the Taliban would be sufficient to address the issue (and disruptive edits were made between the Afghan DS warning and the block). There are people who feel too strongly about the Taliban to be able to jump right in on that topic in a productive way as a new user, but could be productive in other areas. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed| reason=Dear Deepfriedokra. I understand why I was blocked, as Tartan357 laid it out nicely while outlining some fine points. Initially, I made the mistake that many others have made (cf. Wiki policy on the matter) by thinking I was entitled to make the edit because of "free speech" or the like. I do realize that was incorrect. Moreover, I recognize that writing a post about my initial disagreement with Tartan357 on Reddit is uncalled for and unproductive. That is why I never made such a post on Reddit. The Taliban is indeed a sensitive issue, and I was out of line for making a personal accusation, especially because I do not know Tartan357. Given my correspondence with him, I deeply regret my accusation, which was wrong. Such behavior will not repeat itself. The ban on my profile was temporarily lifted, and I did cause anyone any problems in the meantime. I am here to contribute, not get into arguments. I do not believe it is fair to accuse me of feeling "vindicated." Can you please copy and paste the section in my appeal that you believe constitutes a feeling of "vindication"? I ask this because I felt no such thing and have difficulty seeing which part of my appeal you interpret as such. Please note that I mean this earnestly and would like to collaborate on this, as I know what I felt when I wrote my last appeal, and it was not vindication. Lastly, I would like to call for a topic ban so I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia and we can move past this Taliban debacle altogether.|decline=Closing as stale only, you may make a fresh request. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed |1=Dear Deepfriedokra. I made an appeal for being unblocked almost two weeks ago. Please review the appeal and let me know what your verdict is. |decline = This is abusive. One open unblock request at a time, please. Yamla (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)}}