Welcome to Meta!

Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца) | български | ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | Qaraqalpaqsha | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | ລາວ | lietuvių | Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | Norfuk / Pitkern | polski | português | português do Brasil | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | संस्कृतम् | sicilianu | سنڌي | Taclḥit | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ꠍꠤꠟꠐꠤ | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча / tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体) | 中文(繁體) | +/-

Hello, Calvinkulit. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Also worthwhile acquainting yourself with the functions of global user pages. Happy editing!

Arep Ticous 11:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

WikiDirect edit

Can you check out my latest proposal- WikiDirect Arep Ticous 11:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Locked global account edit

Please revert your edit to Template:Locked global account. I have no wish to edit war, but myself and Hiàn both objected to your change, and yet you restored it again. Please revert yourself and seek consensus to implement your change.

Your template is not, indeed, "superior" - there is no need to link to contributions, accounts can be locked by users other than stewards, you do not "you have to make a steward request" - "steward request" implies a request by a steward, not requesting something from stewards, and there are other ways to have an account unlocked, etc.

Please revert yourself, and open a discussion on the talk if you would like to pursue enacting your change. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I changed it, but not to the original style. Calvinkulit (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think it's immediately clear you have no clue what you're doing. Have you read Danny's message? Or the edit summary in my revert? I have no clue why it's so difficult for you to understand something so simple as "get consensus before making your edits." Like, come on, dude, I'd expect users to be able to edit competently but if you are unable to (it sure as hell looks like you aren't), then this is an invitation not to edit within those areas or on Meta overall. Thanks for your understanding (or not, I have no clue if you even decided to read this). Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 05:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
I feel like that it doesn't need consensus. Why should it have a consensus? Using {{mbox}} is better than using the code used for the older revisions of the template. Calvinkulit (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
This code ({| class="messagebox plainlinks" style="padding:5px; text-align:center; font-size:100%" |[[File:Wikimedia-globalblock.svg|45px|left]]This user account has been '''[{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=User:{{PAGENAMEE}}@global}} globally locked]''' on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis (see [[m:global locks|global locks]]).<small><br>([{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=globalauth&page=User:{{PAGENAMEE}}@global}} global account log] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|page=User:{{PAGENAMEE}}}} local block log])</small> |}<includeonly>{{NOINDEX}}[[Category:Locked global accounts|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>) is more inconvenient compared to using a template. Calvinkulit (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Okay, listen, because I'm not sure if I can put my words into simpler English. You've been reverted by a total of three users and you have so far failed to understand what you are doing wrong. You are making a major overhaul of a widely-used template - that alone means you should have consensus for your changes. I don't care whether it's convenient or not. You don't have consensus, therefore you should not be overhauling the template. Again, if you cannot understand what I have said above, you are unable to edit competently, and as such I once again invite you to stay off that template. Hiàn (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Stop editing high-use templates without consensus or reasoning, and stop edit warring about it. Thank you for your understanding, Vermont (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
It's evident you neglected to heed my above message. I've blocked your account for two days as a preventative measure. Vermont (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Seriously? Immediately after you're unblocked, you start edit warring over trivial changes again? I've blocked your account, indefinitely. If you want to edit here again, you can request unblock with the {{unblock}} template, and note you will not be unblocked unless you can allay our fears that you will simply resume edit warring upon an unblock. Vermont (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unblock request. edit

Unblock request declined

This blocked user has had their unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request.
Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason: I am sincerely sorry for edit warring after the previous block, I was just trying to remove unnecessary code.
Note: The edit to Wikimedia Commons that was reverted was to remove unnecessary text, because c: and c:Main Page link to the same thing. I simply didn't mean to edit war there. Once I am unblocked, I will focus on proposing new projects and SRG editing.

Decline reason: no evident reason to unblock  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

বাংলা | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | українська | 中文 | edit

There is an amount of that sort of editing where you are making (unnecessary?) edits to stable pages. Not sure what you are doing.

FWIW C: and C:Main_Page have the same outcome, but they are not the same thing. c: is an interwiki to commons, and where is lacking further direction it defaults to the main page after checking for other components. Having Main Page directs it immediately. Either way, why do you think that you are smart enough to come and change it, and to change it again, over what other experienced users have previously added.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

At this point in time, I am not prepared to unblock you as you haven't expressed 1) why you are here, from what I see it is to fiddle where you have no experience, and 2) what you will be looking to do whilst you are here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Billinghurst: Changed. Calvinkulit (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

That is the most unconvincing argument and non-answer that I have heard. You didn't even attempt to express what and why you are here. Block unchanged.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unblock request (2) edit

Unblock request declined

This blocked user has had their unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request.
Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason: I am sincerely sorry for edit-warring and lack of competence after the previous block. I am here for SRG reports and new proposals for projects, and I will do that after the unblock. I am also doing good work at Commons..

Decline reason: Requester has become inactive and unresponsibve to additional questions below, deactivating this to remove this from the adminbacklog. Should you return please carefully review the discussion below, and feel free to start a new unblock request if you would like. — xaosflux Talk 16:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

বাংলা | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | українська | 中文 | edit

@Billinghurst: I added the reason why I'm here. Calvinkulit (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Words, not an answer. You are not active in any community, so why would you be here for SRG? Your edits here, and your block at enWP don't show that you have built credibility and trust within WMF community. Nobody would or should just be here for SRG, further you have no rights, you have no community, so that is not a credible argument. New projects? Meh! I don't see any reason to unblock you. I suggest that you go and do something useful at a community.

@Vermont: I have already declined once, you may have pity or reflected differently. Other admins, I suggest you progress warily.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I concur with your analysis. It appears as though they're listing two random things one can do at Meta-Wiki, and it just so happens that one tends to be nothing but a time sink (proposing new projects) and the other requires a level of activity in areas that they don't have. I don't see why we should unblock; I had given multiple warnings, even blocked them for a short amount of time, after which they immediately resumed edit warring and apparently still doesn't see what the problem is. Vermont (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Seeing as Calvin chose to espouse what a good job he's doing on Commons recently, I'll note here for the record his edits still show the lack of competence he was blocked here on Meta for (think useless/redundant edits). Hiàn (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
He was blocked for edit warring, not for trivial edits. Otherwise a lot of users would be blocked if 'trivial' edits is a blockable violation. Calvin is trying to contribute better in commons. It's completely understandable if he remains blocked here, but do not shoot down his efforts to learn and contribute. Balakaw (talk)
There is a lack of competence and understanding on how to edit without controversy on the part of Calvin's that I continue to argue played a role in his block. I was, by no means, suggesting users that make trivial edits should be blocked, but users that do so without understanding what they're doing in the first place shows a lack of competence others generally expect editors to show. Hiàn (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
You pointed out "useless/redundant edits" in your last message - which are subjective by the way - as reasons why he should not be unblocked. These are not blockable offences, and I would also argue that some edits may be considered trivial but do contribute positively - i.e. cosmetic or for convenience edits. These are things that 'competent' people won't even do as they are too minor for their greatness; this is where the new people come in.
From his recent request, Calvin already understands why he was blocked (edit warring, modifying high use templates without concensus), and from recent activity it looks he didn't do these things again. Balakaw (talk)
Can't we just proceedurally decline this unblock rather than let it stand for so long which is a little unfair to the user? I scanned through the user contributions, per Hiàn, their work in commons are decent but they seems to still lack the knowledge of what amounts to edit warring and how to talk for controversial changes rather than unilaterally changing pages / template. I make a humble suggestion, why not ask them to show what they will want to do here on this page (like they stated, if they want to report to SRG, what accounts are they reporting), with a promise to not edit war anymore and an explanation of what edit warring is and not on their own words. Then, we can show them some ROPE and put it that if they repeat this problematic behaviour again, it will be an immediate block on sight and no further unblock will be entertained for a significant (I mean 6-12 months) time. @Vermont and Billinghurst:? Best Regards, --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
The user can address the issues that were raised. The user can withdraw their request for an unblock at any time. I don't see that the ball is in our court. I have already stated my opinion above, what has changed that I should be pinged? Are you expecting me to run around on this?  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Shall we just decline this unblock request then? If Calvinkulit you are reading, do hope you can read my comment and then respond to my queries. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply