User talk:Maravelous

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Maravelous, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Tutelary (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here five years and now you welcome me? Maravelous (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can you point me where there's consensus to remove the material in this edit please? Яehevkor ✉ 18:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked User:Squeakbox to explain it to you. Your desire to restart one of the worst edit war battles that Wikipedia ever had is shocking to me, leaving me speechless. Article is protected for a reason. Good luck to you.Maravelous (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a single source for an alleged ancient incident which absolutely fails our notability bar as well as having serious biography of living people policy concerns. At the very least, Rehevkor, you need to get a consensus of editors who agree with your reasoning as to why this incident passes our notability threshold. And you need at least one other reliable source, ideally a more recent one than this which explains what happened next. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, glad you are still well. I am not sure why this person wants to restart the wars but they are boring and should remain over. Maravelous (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

new internet, no offenses, legitimate user

Decline reason:

This account is not blocked. If you can not edit, please make a new unblock request and include whatever message you get when you try to edit, including any IP address. If you wish to keep your IP address confidential, please use WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2019 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Message:Editing from 45.48.170.0/24 has been blocked (disabled) by Berean Hunter for the following reason(s):

Accept reason:

I gave you IPBE for 4 days. If Berean doesn't respond by those four days, I will remove the block so that you can edit without IPBE. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That IP range is under a checkuser block, meaning a checkuser will need to look into this. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Berean Hunter should take a look at this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Definitely Berean Hunter territory. I can't make heads or tails of it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi. Just because something is factual, does not mean it appears on Wikipedia. You are confused about this. I agree it's not an obvious point at first. But no, you won't be adding any further details from the court verdict. My suggestion to you is: Go persuade a journalist (perhaps in the trade on these issues) that the verdict is noteworthy. Perhaps they will introduce key details of this verdict into an NPOV Secondary source, which is needed here. Your NPOV Primary source cannot stand alone as the source on any additional information. If you press it, you'll probably be blocked from that page, but it's also likely the verdict itself will be removed. Mcfnord (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC) \[reply]

Josh Olson[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Josh Olson. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit war. Go away Maravelous (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:29, 4 February 2015 01:30, 7 January 2020 22:11, 24 February 2020 18:14, 31 March 2021 Those are just on one topic. There appear to be more. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

four Valid changes over the course of six years does not a war make. Perhaps learn something? Again please go away. Thanks.Maravelous (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's valid, then why have you failed to gain consensus for it and why did you attempt to remove the discussion of the consensus against it? --Hipal (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you what you were talking about but you do not even know. There is no edit war by any definition of one. You have stalked me among multiple articles today alone. I have asked you to please stop stalking me.Maravelous (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly stalking and harassing me [1][2][3][4]. Will you stop it please? --Hipal (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maravelous - he/she/it just opened the same case against me. Ironic, it's the typical shutdown from a spamming editor filled with bias. I expect my account to be shut down - totally fine but I will be getting a lawyer - I've done nothing wrong at all. In fact, I enhanced this community. And one user, one known on the Internet under numerous aliases for abuse is here doing it again. I don't how to PM you - but here is my info. movesbrit@gmail.com or www.britonthemove.com and use contact. Or just search "Brit On The Move" - you'll find me. I am not down for censorship or accusations that get thrown around here and it's crystal clear that Wikipedia is to some degree especially. when it comes to editors! Nikki Moving On With Brit (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what case it "opened" but many of these editors treat Wikipedia like a video game where they have to "win" no matter what. Back in the late 2000s I managed to have an army to defend against my personal article that these gamers tried very hard to deface on a daily basis. They drove you away because you are a woman- there was press this weekend that confirmed most editors where losers in a basement. Your lawyer will get you no where, I am sorry for your loss. These guys just move on to the next woman and drive her away too. Maravelous (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice - discretionary sanctions apply for Scientology[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Scientology. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Hipal (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are creeping me out by stalking me and following me around. STOP IT NOW stop being a clown Maravelous (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I am not the only one who doesn't get along with Hipal. You guys really have to start being more agreeable with others and less harsh in taking down content for no reason.

Watch out Maravelous, the R2D2 android might issue another public policy warning. BEEP BEEP YOU ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 5.23 UNDER THE CODE 8:7. Hipal, I have a question for you. Do you power down at night or do you activate wireless charging?

June 2021[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Ramdev. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Based on the early warnings about edit warring, your comments towards Hipal who sent a courtesy notice about DS, I am choosing level-4 warning. -- DaxServer (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry do I know you? Do you know me? Let me know thanks. Maravelous (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to your behaviour towards other editors, in the comment on Talk:Ramdev. -- DaxServer (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry do I know you? Do you know me? Let me know thanks! (asked agayne) Maravelous (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]