Hello, Mismak Abel, 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 help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 08:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello! Mismak Abel,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!
|
- wolf 08:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I have reverted a large number of your edits where you have added a sentence about the living status of election candidates. There are two problems with what you have added.
So to include this information you would first have to cite a reliable source, and also provide a date for it. Thanks. Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
You are still doing this. Please stop working out, and then adding to Wikipedia articles, trivia facts about;
If you had a source, you might be able to demonstrate that some of these facts are significant. But currently it's all just trivia, that is your own original research, which is unsourced. This is not permitted on Wikipedia and you are wasting your own time, and everyone who has to keep removing it. Continuing to edit in this manner will likely get you blocked for being disruptive. Please stop it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Mismak Abel. I have noticed your edits to the List of United States political families (S) page. I just want to suggest that it might be easier and faster to do the editing by grouping them up more rather than making a change or two, saving, and then making another change or two. Best of luck, Super Goku V (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
"I would ask you kindly to not reverse what I am going to edit now. I disagree with your edits and I have reversed them because edits similar to them are in this article and they have been left intact. Kindly stop. Just stop! Thank you. Stop with the vandalism."
I await your comments, either here, on my talk page, or, where you should have gone to begin with, on the article talk page. --Golbez (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi. You've been asked several times to stop changing the end date for Roosevelt's governor term against consensus. It's getting a bit disruptive to the page, so you've been temporarily blocked from making edits to this one article.
You're free to edit the article again in one week, but if you still think the term expired on January 1 rather than December 31 it would help if you supplied some reliable sources to support your case. Rather than edit-warring in the article itself, it would also be helpful if you presented your argument and sourcing at Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt so that the existing consensus can be evaluated, kept or changed. Happy to discuss further and all the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Why are you so incorrectly confident that Cleveland won Ohio in 1892? Our article shows Harrison won. To quote some of your edit summaries: Get your facts straight and stop writing down falsity. For someone who is so insulting of others for putting incorrect info, you need to be more careful with what you publish. --Golbez (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. DrKay (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Mismak Abel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
the reason is because an editor was rightly allowed to reverse an edit containing a profanity word on the article about Governor Chris Sununu of New Hampshire and to have his edit untouched and unreversed. I deserved this same treatment. Come on, man. Please. Thank you.
Decline reason:
Duplicate request. Only one open request is needed at a time. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
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.
Mismak Abel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason why I want to be unblocked is because I know that there was a guy who removed an edit that contained a profanity word on the article about Governor Chris Sununu of New Hampshire and the edit that he made was not reversed. Why is it that I did not get the same treatment? Mismak Abel (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You do not provide the specific edit to Chris Sununu that you discuss, so I can't comment on it, but each edit is considered on its own merits. At Spiro Agnew you removed profanity that was integral to the article(how a Senator described Agnew). 331dot (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
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.
Mismak Abel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
the reason I want to be unblocked is because it is better for me to not reverse the profanities on Wikipedia articles even though I still hate the profanities so much and I will focus instead on correcting mistakes on Wikipedia articles and on also adding missing things on Wikipedia articles. So unblock me, please. Thank you.
Decline reason:
This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate and confirm that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:
Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
((infobox name|...))
),[[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]
),[[Category:Name]]
),((Foo stub))
);== [[Article title]] ==
) the copied content but do not save yet;Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution.
"((reflist-talk))
. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "((Help me|your question here ~~~~))
" to your talk page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
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.
Mismak Abel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I want to be unblocked because I agree to follow the rules of Wikipedia and I agree to contribute always and only positively to Wikipedia. I am willing to focus on that. I will wait for a response or for an answer. Thank you.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline; user plans to follow the second-chance offered above, so will make an unblock request after following those instructions. Yamla (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
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.
To be clear, you are explicitly rejecting the path you were offered, correct? You are not interested in demonstrating you plan to edit constructively? --Yamla (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
You are continuing to edit disruptively. Please note that you have access to this talk page solely so you can contest your block, not so you can mess around with disruptive edits like this. You are in danger of losing talk page access so I suggest you knock it off immediately. --Yamla (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Mismak Abel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I agree to contribute positively to Wikipedia articles and to never in any moment disrupt anything on Wikipedia. I do also agree that I will focus on just correcting mistakes on Wikipedia articles by reversing wrong, erroneous and incorrect edits and on adding missing contents on Wikipedia articles.Mismak Abel (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
As you are clearly rejecting the path I offered you to unblocking above, despite earlier today claiming you were accepting the offer, I very strongly oppose lifting this block. Furthermore, your actions today clearly demonstrate WP:CIR competence concerns. I will not respond further. --Yamla (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I solved the problem. It is all good. I am sorry for the mistakes that I had made.
Mismak Abel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am planning on following the path you offered me to demonstrate I plan to edit constructively Mismak Abel (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
Mismak Abel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand that I have been blocked for reversing an edit with a profanity word on a Wikipedia article about Spiro Agnew, I will not do it ever again and I will learn to contribute positively to Wikipedia so please unblock me and learn to respond to me quickly and stop ignoring me, please. Thank you Mismak Abel (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You say you've read and accept the offer that Yamla makes above, about how to earn a second chance to return to editing. That's great but you now need to actually follow those instructions and create some sample edits here on this talkpage. This will help demonstrate your editing skills and be a step toward an unblock of this account. You don't need to be unblocked to follow the instructions Yamla has outlined. But until you do follow those instructions and actually make some sample edits, there's no point in creating more unblock requests. Feel free to post a further request only after you've followed Yamla's instructions and posted some sample edits on this page. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
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.
Where did you make sample edits? I notice the two sentences you added but they aren't an example of an encyclopedic contribution as outlined in Yamla's instructions. Let me know if I've misunderstood and you've made the sample edits somewhere else. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
No. I did not make sample edits somewhere else. Please just show me how to do it, please. I am sick and tired of wasting my time for real. Ok? Please. You know what? Never mind. It is ok. I will wait until after two weeks in order to return to edit like before after my block will expire.
((infobox name|...))
),[[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]
),[[Category:Name]]
),((Foo stub))
);== [[Article title]] ==
) the copied content but do not save yet;Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution.
"((reflist-talk))
. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, user with the username 331dot. I hope you are fine. I wanted to talk to you about my disagreements with your edits on the article about Joe Biden. I disagree with you on the edits that you made on the article about Joe Biden because Joe Biden was the eighth-youngest senator in the United States history at the age of 30 years and 44 days after John Henry Eaton who was 28, Armistead Mason who was also 28, John Jordan Crittenden who was 29, Thomas Worthington who was also 29, Henry Clay who was also 29, Rush Holt Sr. who was 30 years and 2 days old and William Wells who was 30 years and 10 days old. I am speaking based on the truth. Thomas Worthington was 29 when he became United States Senator from Ohio and William Wells was 30 years and 10 days old when he became United States Senator from Delaware. Explain to me why you disagree with me on this. Please explain to me clearly why you disagree with me on this. Thank you. I feel like your problem with my correct and accurate edits that you completely reversed to the point of disregarding carefulness on the way of doing things on Wikipedia is based on you not having checked the articles about Thomas Worthington and William Hill Wells. I checked them so I know what I am talking about and I know that my edits were right. Ok? I am waiting for some response from you. I don't want to engage in arguments and edit wars. I am here to have a peaceful, positive and decent conversation with you. Ok? I will wait for you to respond to me. Mismak Abel (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the ((Ctopics/aware)) template.
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Elizabeth II. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
There is exact sourcing saying Wolf was inaugurated on January 3. If you have a source that disputes that then place include it - and no, the NGA doesn't count, they are used to establish the existence of the governor but they aren't reliable for dates, which is why I source every single date individually, and your edit ignored those sources. Your edit was far more wrong and false than anything it replaced. --Golbez (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)