User talk:Nidthogg

March 2022

Hello, I'm Serols. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Charro outfit, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Serols (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Villanueva del Conde. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sea Cow. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Jacob Elordi—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Sea Cow (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jacob Elordi, you may be blocked from editing.

In particular, it's extremely bad faith to leave misleading edit summaries. Your attempt to insert inappropriate material against consensus is not you fixing a typo. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Elordi

Continuously adding the same information to Jacob Elordi will not make it stay. Please see WP:3RR about the three revert rule and WP:EW about edit warring. If you think it should be added then start a discussion on the talk page, do not re-add it to the article. Suonii180 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is more accurate information. The Basque Country is an autonomous community of the Kingdom of Spain, so what I add is totally correct. Nidthogg (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2022 (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:Nidthogg reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: ). Thank you. CUPIDICAE💕 15:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you revert yourself as I've adequately explained on the talk page why this is not an appropriate edit and you're now on 8 reverts. Unless, of course, your goal is to be indefinitely blocked, I don't care either way. CUPIDICAE💕 16:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not an appropriate edition? I have not lied. The change I make is true information. I would like to know why you edit when what I am doing is being more concise to enrich the article. Nidthogg (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I explained on the talk page and Wikipedia requires WP:CONSENSUS which you've not achieved, so revert your edit or get blocked. CUPIDICAE💕 16:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explain it here, because I don't know what you wrote there, I didn't understand it Nidthogg (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not explaining myself again. The onus is on you and you need to discuss it on the talk page. I've already filed a report and once an administrator reviews it, you're likely to wind up blocked. It would behoove you to revert yourself to show good faith. CUPIDICAE💕 16:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any false changes. The Basque Country is an autonomous community of the Kingdom of Spain. I belong to the Basque country, so I know that what I write is real. I don't know what your problem is with adding real information, but it is very painful for my people Nidthogg (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. firefly ( t · c ) 16:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think my block is unfair. The only thing I did was add real data in an article. An article that what it says is important to me, since as a Basque I have suffered harassment, threats and even violence for many years for considering myself Spanish. After many years, we have managed to put an end to the reign of terror (like the terrorist group ETA), so the words of Jacob Elordi, saying that he is not of Spanish descent but Basque, what he does is 1- Not being completely honest . 2- Reopen a wound that we tried to close. 3- Confuse new generations.

Due to all this, I request that it be unblocked and that Jacob Elordi's article include the information that his family is from the Basque country, an autonomous community of Spain.

Thank you very much. Nidthogg (talk) 17:07, 18 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).

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

Request reason:

I think my block is unfair. The only thing I did was add real data in an article. An article that what it says is important to me, since as a Basque I have suffered harassment, threats and even violence for many years for considering myself Spanish. After many years, we have managed to put an end to the reign of terror (like the terrorist group ETA), so the words of Jacob Elordi, saying that he is not of Spanish descent but Basque, what he does is 1- Not being completely honest . 2- Reopen a wound that we tried to close. 3- Confuse new generations.

Due to all this, I request that it be unblocked and that Jacob Elordi's article include the information that his family is from the Basque country, an autonomous community of Spain.

Thank you very much. Nidthogg (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The substance of your edits is not the main issue. You were edit warring to preserve what you think the article should say; this is unacceptable even if you are correct with your edits, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. To be unblocked before the block ends on its own, you will need to describe more acceptable ways of working through a content dispute. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 18 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.

My dude, our article doesn't even say anything remotely related to being Spanish...what Elordi says elsewhere isn't the problem of Wikipedia either. CUPIDICAE💕 17:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it seems somewhat against adding that he is of Spanish descent, since it is edited all the time when they should leave it with that information, which is totally correct.

What is the problem if not? That people don't like to have their stuff edited and complain? That is selfish and childish. If what I add is more correct, it should be left. Nidthogg (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Your recent editing history at Jacob Elordi 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.
If you continue to edit war again on this same article, not only will you be reported to WP:ANEW but I will request an indefinite block at ANI. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what edit War? then you do the same, all I do is enrich the article. Why is what I add wrong and what you add is right? Nidthogg (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell you only one more time - you need to get WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page to reinstate this and provide adequate sourcing. Neither of which you've done, you've only continued to edit war. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, I have written my reasons and nobody has debated them. They just ignored me and kept accusing me of edit war. Nidthogg (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Jacob Elordi for a period of 1 week because of continued edit warring in that area. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions again.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 9 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I think my blocking on Jacob Elordi's page is unfair. The only thing I have done is add more information, true and specific, to the article to make it easier to understand and enrich it. On the talk page I explained the reasons and no one has refuted them. The only thing they have done is re-edit the content (doing the edit war themselves) without any explanation. How does this work? Are there people who have more rights than others who do not even need to debate to impose their law? I was told that a consensus had to be reached to edit the article, but if the rest do not write their arguments, how can a consensus be reached? I think my blocking on Jacob Elordi's page is unfair. The only thing I have done is add more information, true and specific, to the article to make it easier to understand and enrich it. On the talk page I explained the reasons and no one has refuted them. The only thing they have done is re-edit the content (doing the edit war themselves) without any explanation. How does this work? Are there people who have more rights than others who do not even need to debate to impose their law? I was told that a consensus had to be reached to edit the article, but if the rest do not write their arguments, how can a consensus be reached? Nidthogg (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Again, please see dispute resolution. Only you can control your actions. If others are edit warring with you, do not fight fire with fire, make a report at WP:ANEW. Others edit warring does not justify yours. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 9 May 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.

I've placed your text within the request template, overwriting the "Your reason here" text. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]