User talk:Trust Is All You Need

Courtesy warning

You have now reverted Socialist state 3x (as have I). If you make any more reversions to that article in the next 24 hours, for any reason, you will be in violation of 3RR. With your recent track record of blocks, please don't do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): Then be constructive. You are not behaving constructively. --TIAYN (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you are not following wikipedia protocol on not re-adding material after it has been reverted. You discuss... you do not re-add. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): In certain cases one has to be brave, and say the truth... especially since you've still failed to say what the difference between the new one and the old version is. --TIAYN (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Trust_Is_All_You_Need reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: ). Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive pinging

Please stop pinging Tarage - it's bordering on harassment. They have asked you at least three times to stop. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: Sorry! --TIAYN (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Socialist state, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fundamental law, Richard Starr and Capitalist mode of production (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive pinging

Once again, stop pinging. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop accusing me of crap I haven't done. --TIAYN (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 1 week for edit warring. Andrevan@ 07:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: Where? I have not breached 3RR rule recently, and you revert my changes in retrospect. --TIAYN (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert you're edit here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=842250952 No reason to delete my thread on that talk page... was there @Andrevan:?

You cannot unilaterally decide the usage and naming of all the pages to do with "socialist state" and "communist state" were wrong despite reliable sourcing and consensus against you. Andrevan@ 07:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: Which reliable sources are against me? This version has https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_state&oldid=842246607 has over 120 references, all from secondary sources. --TIAYN (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

Trust Is All You Need (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Andrevan: block is politically motivated. I proved on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (an edit he reverted, see here [1] that nearly all references / sources use socialist states to define Marxist-Leninist states. * A quick search on Google Books show that all the hits are on the Marxist–Leninist states (communist states) * The same goes with Google scholar * A search on Jstor every hit goes leads to Marxist-Leninist states, with the exception of a couple of hits for "National Socialist state" and one non-Marxist–Leninist article from 1909 on the "Socialist state" * A search on Google gives strange hits on the first page (3 for WP, one for Quora, a definition, an amazon and pro and anti-socialist propaganda).. However,from page 2 onwards nearly every link is about the Marxist–Leninist socialist state. In addition, I find it hard to believe I was blocked when I tried to solve the discussion by involving administrators. I should be thanked for that, and not blocked. I also find utterly strange that he deleted my post on the administrators noticeboard—this is an extremely strange... why? are you censuring me? even if I'm blocked there is no reason for the discussion to end. He also writes that I was blocked "You cannot unilaterally decide the usage and naming of all the pages to do with "socialist state" and "communist state" were wrong despite reliable sourcing and consensus against you".... I haven't! A quick search on Google proves my point.. The article I wrote, here, has over 120 references. I haven't forced my POV. I have, however, been in disagreement with two users who refuse to reference their statements that the version I wrote was POV. I followed WP:UNDUE. The timing of this block is extremely suspect, and political! The intention is so censure me. --TIAYN (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC) I'm not saying I'm perfect... but if you get blocked everytime you post something to the Admin noticeboard it is really very hard to want to do it again. Because the thanks I got was a block. --TIAYN (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block is valid. There is no evidence of a political motivation to block or silence you; silencing you is not the issue. The point here is that regardless of your sources, you don't get to unilaterally decide how things are going to be, no matter how right you are. (if you are) If disputed, you must begin a discussion about the matter. As this request does not address the reason for your block, I am declining it. If you continue to debate the matter on this page or make unblock requests that do not address your block, I will remove talk page access and extend the block. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2018 (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.

The term "socialist" is used in many different contexts across many types of sources, and your attempt to make it purely Marxist-Leninist states, which many political observers do not consider to be socialist, isn't supported by a considerable body of sourcing. See Portal:Socialism for tons of article work that use varying definitions of "socialism." You were warned and blocked previously to discuss and obtain consensus for major rewrites, redirects and moves. Andrevan@ 07:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, the term @Andrevan: socialist.. But the term "socialist" is not the term "socialist state".. I am a socialist! I am an anti-communist. Of course I know that. We are talking about the specific term "socialist state" and not "socialist". --TIAYN (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I followed WP:BOLD. I didn't think I would be blocked for doing it. @Andrevan: If you want me stop with that, I will until the discussion is over. BUt you are conflating "socialist" and "socialism" with "socialist state". --TIAYN (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles about "socialism" have described them in a nuanced way that captures many different states that describe themselves as socialist states. Not simply your specific Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. Wikipedia does not need you to straighten this out in such a bold way. Start a discussion or an RFC. Please cool off for a week and try to do things more diplomatically. It isn't just be bold, it's "bold, revert, discuss," and you were edit warring. Andrevan@ 07:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: Actually no It doesn't. The socialism articles uses the term "socialist state" twice, each time in relation with the Soviet Union. First time:

and while the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with the Soviet economic model, many economists and intellectuals argued that in practice the model functioned as a form of state capitalism
The rule of the provisional government was ended and the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic—the world's first constitutionally socialist state—was established. On 25 January 1918 at the Petrograd Soviet, Lenin declared "Long live the world socialist revolution

It proves im right, not you.

No I was not. I tried to collaborate with Fyunclick but he called me a terrible editor and that he didn't trust me.. I did collaborate with user Dentren. See Talk:Socialist state. --TIAYN (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: Alas, if you had actually bothered to read the version I wrote, you would have noticed I worked on the section "Alternative conceptions of the socialist state" which, according to the plan, was going to include reformism, trotskyism and all other socialist denominations. I did not censure the non-Marxist–Leninist view. I gave it, per WP:UNDUE, the emphasise it rightfully has. --TIAYN (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a major change like this you need to start RFCs and have discussions at various WikiProjects, etc., not revert war with Pedro. Andrevan@ 07:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor hopefully sees, this was a bad block. I did not even get a bloody warning... and the worst thing is, I have proof.. Just look at the links above.

I have not had a revert war with @Andrevan: Pedro. One revert is not a war. --TIAYN (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are a repeat offender -- you've been warned and blocked in the past for this issue. If you do a bold change and you get reverted, you shouldn't revert back -- that's edit warring. You need to then discuss the change and obtain a consensus. Otherwise, the stable status quo in the article should remain until you can discuss productively with other editors. Andrevan@ 07:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YOu suddenly switched topic. Where does it say @Andrevan: that users who have been blocked in the past are supposed to be discriminated against? I did not revert back on the communist state article. THe socialist state article edit was not bold however. IT HAS OVER 120 REFERENCES WHICH BACK WHAT I AM SAYING, the old version has 30, and over half of them original Marxist texts, Trotskyist literature and constitutions. Dentren thought the article was good, and so did the majority of readers I assume. --TIAYN (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not say you were a terrible editor... I explained that. I said when you wrote in the article "This article will try to summarise the practical features of the socialist states as they were—the political, economic and judicial systems" that that was bad writing for an encyclopedia. That's a big difference than what you are saying. I also asked you to turn it into a draft so that others (including Wikipedia Projects) could comment and make suggestions on a finished product. For all I know 80% of what you conveyed is fine, but that massive a change I felt required more eyes and writers than just you. The opening lead section was the example I gave whose meaning was changed by what you wrote. That is why I reverted you and then gave up as not worth it. But then you also reverted the fact that I tagged it as needing a red link fix since there were originally none and your changes had 16 or more (since lowered by you). It was those 5 reverts in a row that had me report you to administrators, but no one resolved that issue. By that time, and after all your pinging, I no longer trusted you, that is true. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock R2

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).

Trust Is All You Need (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You are wrong to say I don't understand why I was blocked @331dot:. I do. Thats why I decided to start a discussion on the Admin noticeboard to prevent that for happening. I wanted to involve other parties to ensure that what happened on the socialist state article did not descend into an edit war. I wanted to involve as many parties as possible, and I believed in my case. I believed it I presented my case, and proved it (all proof is on my side) that I would win... But of course, the point is not to win, but make Wikipedia as factual accurate as possible. I do understand why I was blocked. But I don't like Andrevan's reasoning. First he says its because I was blocked due to the socialist state article.. And now he says I got blocked because I got blocked earlier. That is bad reasoning, and shows bad judgement. Alas, the talk page on socialist states actively proves that I've tried to involve all parties that are involved in editing the future of the article. I have not acted as a dictator and been willing to compromise, in fact, everywhere (or at least, thats how it feels). As for the question of why I got blocked; yes, I do understand it. But the timing is off.. If I involve admins on the topic, to find a solution, I shouldn't be blocked because I showed the admins there was problems on the page. I got punished because I showed it to admins. That is a strange form of justice. I knew what was happening and I acted accordingly. My latest edits prove that with the Admin noticeboard message I wrote. I wanted to follow the rules. As I see it I involved the Admins when I saw I couldn't handle it on my own any longer.... But why am I blocked for that? I'm self confident, maybe even arrogant, I was 100% certain that my case would win through. And I still am, but now I'm getting punished by the admins I sought to involve instead. I want to be involved in that discussion I started. And I want to fix the socialist state article. --TIAYN (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

cannot unblock you at this time. Please put the coming week to good use. Please read up on edit warrring and it's alternatives. Edit warring is not about right or wrong. It is about instead needing to discuss and find consensus. There is no justice, merely disruptive vs constructive. Stating ulterior motives for blocking will probably not result in an unblock. The way to prevent an edit war is to stop editing in a manner others do not agree with when you lack consensus. The purpose of ANI is not to prove others wrong when they do not agree with you. It is to identify and halt disruptive editing. That you were earlier blocked is not the reason for this block. It just goes to show a continued pattern of disruptive editing. As to preventing an edit war, you have succeeded in that goal. We would all prefer that you would learn from this and not make it necessary to block you again.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2018 (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.

I will only say that if your goal is to "win" that you probably are not a good fit for this collaborative environment. It's not about winning or losing, but about discussion with others to find consensus. I will not be reviewing this unblock request, but if you continue to debate on this page, I will still remove talk page access. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: That's fine, sorry. My point was not to argue. I will not make any more comments on the talk page from now on. --TIAYN (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what edit warring is? --Tarage (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to block my edit access.

@Tarage: Who are you?

@Dlohcierekim: I did not edit war. I reverted one time. That is very different from an edit war.

To be honest, I'm starting to believe this Wikipedia is shit. I follow WP:UNDUE (I even proved it), I follow WP:NO original research and I tried to prevent an edit war by involving the admins... and I get fucking blocked for it!. This Wikipedia is becoming a shit hole—this is my opinion, and if you extend my block you're proving me right.

The bloody problem is that the WP community has consistently failed to write an article on socialist state because instead of following WP:UNDUE they follow their own POV.

The admin system should be reformed, and admins like @Andrevan: should lose their privileges. I've gotten two unfair blocks in a month. I, alongwith any other WP member, should be able to remove bad admins and give them marks. This situation is becoming ridicules. This is a dictatorship which users like @Fyunck(click): (the above post is a lie—he never suggested what he wrote) gets away with shitty behaviour.. While users who know the topic gets blocked. Not only have I not breached any rules, I was willing to collaborate with everyone—and he refused.

What you, and other users don't fucking get is that WP:CONSENSUS is protecting bad articles, bad editors and bad admins. WP is supposed to be factually accurate. Right now, the socialist state is a fucking mess which isn't even following WPs own fucking guidelines.

I know an admin reading this is thinking "Oh he hasn't learned! Lets extend his block by a week! No, or course thats not enough, lets extend by a month!" Not only is this arbitrary—today I was blocked because I reverted once, and the editor who blocked, after losing the argument later said that my past behaviour was a good enough reason to discriminate me. Not only that this whole process is similar to a communist self-criticism.. The only what I can become free is if I recant my sins, if I even suggest the block is wrong its impossible. THis system does not work. This system is unfair. This system should be destroyed. I will destroy it, and I will get my version on that fucking article. Because WP:CONSENSUS should not defend factual inaccuracies. WP is a learning which thousands use to learn. By spreading false information WP is no better then fake news. --TIAYN (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who wanted to help you. I'll stop. --Tarage (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will destroy it, and I will get my version on that fucking article has just earned you an indefinite block. Next similar comment will lose your talk page access. Your choice. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: I knew it would earn me an indefinite block. Because you criticse admins on Wikipedia they block you. Good system. Why not ban me while you there? You're obviously very good at handling criticism --TIAYN (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage: If that hasn't been clear to me before then obviously you are not communicating well. --TIAYN (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look if you don't want my help, pinging me is not the way to go about it. What I was going to say is that your block, and previous blocks, have been due to the fact that you edit war. I don't know if you understand, but the cycle of editing is make an edit, and if someone reverts you you both go to the talk page and try to work towards consensus. But sadly, you seem deadset on ignoring that and forcing your point of view through. Worse yet, you have a mistaken belief that just because you think you're right you should be allowed to ignore the rules. An editor who has been around as long as you have should know better. You were not blocked because you criticized anyone. You were blocked because you were edit warring, and that block has been increased because you threatened to vandalize Wikipedia. You have no one to blame but yourself at this point. If I were you, I'd take a break. Go do something else for a while and calm down. If this truly means as much to you as it seems, you'll need to have a cool head and work WITH other editors, not against them. Remember, if you work with people, you have a chance of getting the changes you want, where as if you work against them, you are guaranteed that your changes will never be accepted. Come back in a month or so, accept that you were edit warring and lashed out in anger, and ask to come back. That, or never coming back, are your only two options right now. --Tarage (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage: I did not threaten to vandalise Wikipedia. Neither have I broken any rules. I follow WP:No original research and WP:UNDUE. The others however seem bent to think that WP:CONSENSUS are mo important than those rules. That is wrong.

I'm not forcing my view on anyone. I'm forcing facts. Over 120 references from secondary sources, and Google hit recrods when you search "socialist state".

I work with other editors, but when I did that yesterday I was blocked. I reported a problem and got blocked because I reported a problem. I reverted one editor once—that is not ediit warring and you know that.

I havn't worked against anyone. These users are working actively against me! If they worked with me they wouldn't have blocked me. --TIAYN (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did break the rules. Edit warring is a bright line. If you violate it, you will be blocked. Please read about it. Secondly "I will destroy it, and I will get my version on that fucking article" is a threat of vandalism. Please just go do something else for a while before your talk page access is revoked. And stop pinging me please. --Tarage (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage: Its not a threat of vandalism. Vandalism is when you put factual inaccurate information on WP. That has been committed, but not by me.

Nope, I reverted 1. Once is not an edit war. --TIAYN (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that is true, while 3RR is a bright line, someone can still be edit warring if it seems like they have been or will continue to be disruptive.

You were not blocked because you criticized administrators, you were blocked initially for edit warring, and then got it extended because you threatened to impose your will on an article and disrupt Wikipedia to do it. It does not matter how right you are. This is a collaborative project and you must collaborate with others and play nice with them. You do not get to impose your will just because you believe you are right or even if you are right. You're not going to get everything you want just because you are right or think you are right. If you want to publish what you believe is right somewhere, you should author and publish an academic paper somewhere. I would second what Tarage has said, you should probably take a break for awhile. If you make it necessary, we can help you with that, but I would prefer you do so voluntarily. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I did play nice. I repeatedly tried Fyunck(click) to say clearly what was wrong—he never did. He repeatedly refused—why isn't he blocked? And unlike what he write above here, he never wrote. Secondly, I wrote on the Admin board to ensure an edit war did not take place. So yes, I was collaborative, and I was trying to involve more people. My edit history proves it, Talk:Socialist state proves it. Everything bloody proves it... But instead you are imposing a malinformed block on me based on a lie.

This has nothing to what I believe to be right. This is about what IS RIGHT. What I believe to be right has no fucking place on Wikipedia. The fact that you accuse me of this just shows my point even more. You say I fail to collaborate, but really you are. YOu are accusing me of everything imagineable, without proof.

Obviously I won't came in a better bloody mood because this block is not right. As long as its not right I won't come back in a better mood. Its that simple. If its unfair it is unfair, and I don't accept unfair! --TIAYN (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration is not "you must listen to me and do what I want because I am right"- even if you are right. Unsurprisingly, most people think that they are right about what they talk about. Collaboration is politely working out differences and reaching consensus. Again, you will not get everything you want just because you are right. Being a right-fighter is exactly the wrong attitude to have here. Since it doesn't seem like you will do so on your own, I can only tell you that further disruption to this page will result in talk page access removal- which will make it harder for you to be unblocked as you will have to use WP:UTRS. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:I haven't done that at all... You will also find proof of that on the talk page. Per WP:UNDUE I am right, a quick Google search proves it [2]... What do you gets hit on? Yes, indeed, Marxist–Leninist states.. The same goes for Jstor, Yahoo, Google Scholar, Project Muse el cetra el cetra.

Tell me exactly how I'm disrupting this page? Its a talk page! More specific, its the talk page that belongs to this user (TIAYN). I'm using to state, categorically. that I oppose this block, you, the admin structure and pretty much every little fucking detail. Thats not disruption, that is sharing my point of view (yes, this is POV). Disruption my ass, the only thing you and the other admins care about are yourself. The only one who is disrupting anything is you & the others. I am not disrupting shit, you are. Disruption is what you are doing to me.

The only person who should get blocks are you and the others. --TIAYN (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

331dot (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TPA removed for vulgar language, personal attacks, unwillingness to collaborate, and failure to recognize their errors. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected this talk page due to block evasion and personal attacks from an IP. See Special:Contributions/2001:700:700:19:1176:EB63:AE60:25D1. @Trust Is All You Need: if you wish to make an unblock request, you need to log in and use WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trust Is All You Need: I just want to respond to your threat here that "I'll have to sockpuppet until you revert the unfair block on me." Many very persistent blocked editors have attempted that in the past, but none has succeeded. I can promise you that such an approach stands no chance of getting you unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trust Is All You Need: I'll make one last attempt to try to get you to see sense. You absolutely will not be allowed to dictate the content of Wikipedia articles against consensus. Your persistence has so far got your account blocked, and has lost you the ability to edit this talk page. As a result of your block evasion via IP today, I first blocked just the IP address you were using. Then after you switched IP, I blocked your /64 range. Should you find other IP addresses to use, either they will be blocked or the articles you edit will be protected to stop you. You say you have no choice, but of course you have a choice. You can stop your disruption and return to collegial editing via consensus. You have a long and productive history here, and it would be a shame to see it end this way. Please, spend some time and think on what you are throwing away, and change your course while you still have a chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Trust Is All You Need (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21625 was submitted on May 24, 2018 09:01:33. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Socialist system for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Socialist system 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/Socialist system until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Trust Is All You Need (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21633 was submitted on May 25, 2018 07:30:42. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For any reviewers, please be aware that this editor has been repeatedly evading their block...

Special:Contributions/2001:700:700:19:1176:EB63:AE60:25D1

Special:Contributions/2001:700:700:19:B558:FDF5:8280:CEED

Special:Contributions/2001:700:700:7:98DF:C5C9:ABF5:5566

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sad shame that this user has decided to flush their seemingly until this point productive Wikipedia career down the toilet. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my thoughts exactly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Trust Is All You Need (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21635 was submitted on May 25, 2018 14:27:46. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 12

Newsletter • August 2018

This month: WikiProject X: The resumption

Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!

-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]