User talk:HarimauFury

List of aviation shootdowns[edit]

--WoofersSCW (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On topic of Iranian/Russian drones. I believe a strong argument can be made that the Yasirs at least are Iranian. Since the Iranians intervened in 2013 and the aircraft were not seen before that time. They also crashed in an area with a heavy presence of Iranians and Hezbollah. I am not opposed to labeling them as Syrian, but I believe it should be noted that it is possible that the aircraft belong to Iran or Iranian-backed forces at the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoofersSCW (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all this is technically impossible these are small drone launched by hand not MALE drones which can be controlled from a very long distance, Syria operates these drones. And no it was not from Iran backed forces. Syrian Army is not Iranian backed, it's the army of syria.

Hezbollah also have drones but Hezbollah is Hezbollah not Iran, and have its own flag force. It is possible that the Ababil-3 or Yasir were Hezbollah's ones, but it is quite impossible to be sure of that, because Hezbollah is fighting with the same drones with AAS. So keep it syrian drones by default.

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Syrian Civil War[edit]

@Mr.User200: Blablabla those who make vandalism and shout at everybody whithout answering their question and thinking themselve they are police officer are not authorized into speaking about rules. You are involved into a mass vandalism, not me. Go away from my page ! Mister "give me yt video proof, then yt is not a RS".

March 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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: Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was only trying to restore a page from a mass one week reverting by the user Илија Гуск who used two account to do the mass and unjustified reverting. I didn't know how to ask for an administrator, I asked the user Greyjoy‬ for help thinking he is an administrator. Please reconsider your decision. All is explained here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Илија Гуск reported by User:HarimauFury (Result: HarimauFury blocked).

Decline reason:

What's up with this sock puppet of yours, ElMualim (talk · contribs)? You didn't mention that in your unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2020 (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.

@NinjaRobotPirate:: I updated the unblock request. Look at the history where begun the massive unjustified reverting, in their version even the total counting of aircraft downed is incorrect (113 aircraft instead of ~130), and they reverted it again (more than 6000 caracters removed at once) [1] HarimauFury (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should not modify a declined unblock request; instead, make a new one. I also don't see how accusing other people of sock puppetry excuses your own. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate:: I revert back the declined unblock request. This is beacause I didn't know how to contact administrator or report user since today when I was reported by those one who made the problem. It is not quite easy to find how to do in wikipedia to report somebody. Not so easy to use this part of wikipedia (not as easy as writting articles)...

Here is the new 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).

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

Request reason:

I was only trying to restore a page from a mass one week reverting by the user Илија Гуск who used two account to do the mass and unjustified reverting. I didn't know how to ask for an administrator, I asked the user Greyjoy‬ for help thinking he is an administrator. Please reconsider your decision. All is explained here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Илија Гуск reported by User:HarimauFury (Result: HarimauFury blocked). ElMualim is an account created before , on which I tried to restore the page from it (it is one week of multiple contributions) and it was to answer to this sock puppet 93.87.136.4 of Илија Гуск user which was still reverting the page to a one week old version. This is beacause I didn't know how to contact administrator or report user since today when I was reported by those one who made the problem. It is not quite easy to find how to do in wikipedia to report somebody. I tried to save one week of mutliple contribution from what I consider as a vandalism. Please look at the history where begun the massive unjustified reverting, in their version even the total counting of aircraft downed is incorrect (113 aircraft instead of ~130, their counting is mathematically incorrect), and they reverted it again (more than 6000 caracters removed at once) [2]

Decline reason:

Your explanation of your usage of ElMualim (talk · contribs) makes no sense. Didn't you know it was against policy? Did anyone force you to use a second account? Though you are certain you are right about the article edits, that makes no difference to the admins reviewing your unblock. Most edit warriors are sure that they are right. Your opinion on certain edits being vandalism is not helpful because they don't meet the Wikipedia definition of WP:Vandalism. Finally, attacking other editors in an unblock request rarely leads to a good outcome. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2020 (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.

New req:

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).

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

Request reason:

I used this way as a last resort to save one whole week of work on the page since I didn't know how to do. Now I undesrstand it was not the good choice and I will not use other account again. I should have contacted an administrator to solve this problem and now I know how to do. Also I asked to delete the account ElMualim. HarimauFury (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. Administrators aren't here to solve your edit conflicts. This shows you still don't understand how to resolve disputes. Additionally, you did not delete your other account; it is literally not possible to delete accounts here. Given your sockpuppetry, you've proven you can't be trusted. You can earn back the trust of the community by following WP:SO. Go six months with zero edits here, then reapply. At that point, we'll expect a substantially more convincing unblock request than this, one that shows you have read and understood our policies and guidelines. Yamla (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2020 (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.

New req 2022:

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).

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

Request reason:

Initially I have been blocked for 6 month since March 2020, now we are on 2022, so I demand unblocking please, thank you HarimauFury (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL ^{Query Me!} 06:19, 22 March 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.

New req 2022 bis:

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).

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

Request reason:

I've been blocket by administrators in 2020 for having used another account in an Edit War, and it is no longer necessary to block me for that since I won't use other account in an EditWar and if I see another account doing the same, I'll notice it to administrator instead of doing the same myself.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:57, 9 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.

New req 2022 ter:

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked by admins 2 years ago for being involved in an Edit War and using another account in this edit war, which is not compliant with wikipedia rules. However it is no longer necessary to let me blocked for this reasong because I will never use any other account in an EditWar or in any mean that could cause troubles. And if I see another account doing this, instead of doing the same myself, I will notice it to administrator instead.

Decline reason:

Please read through WP:DR and WP:RAA, then make a new unblock request that mentions how to resolve content disputes and editors who are editing disruptively/socking. If you do this right, I think you can finally be unblocked. I would like to be sure that you understand how to use Wikipedia's forums and noticeboards, and what policies editors need to follow when they have a problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 14 June 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.

Comment: The last decline specified "You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request" this is not that, its the exact same request. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavalizard101: I though it was a bot which closed my demand. I just rephrased it now, now it's corrected.