User talk:Purple rain and black sky

December 2023

Hi Purple rain and black sky! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes understood Purple rain and black sky (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Purple rain and black sky! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Melbourne shuffle several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Melbourne shuffle, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already had a damn edit war why don't you read the talk page??? Purple rain and black sky (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Melbourne shuffle. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion, behavioural evidence aligns closely with Australianblackbelt (talk · contribs) or a proxy therein.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Daniel (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2024 (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).

Purple rain and black sky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No idea what this is about

Decline reason:

The reason for the block is stated above. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2024 (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.

Indonesia claims to have reviled inventor of Melbourne Shuffle: English Wikipedia deletes facts.... Screenshots sent to subjects Pr Manager

That just reinforces the block evasion. Canterbury Tail talk 22:59, 1 January 2024 (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).

Purple rain and black sky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

English wikipedia has been slammed in Indonesia LoL https://radarkaur.disway.id/read/651420/pengungkapan-spektakuler-pembuat-melbourne-shuffle-teridentifikasi

Decline reason:

An unblock request needs to address your conduct, which you have not done. —C.Fred (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2024 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Purple rain and black sky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern and seek resolution regarding the recent block on users, including myself, from contributing to the Melbourne Shuffle talk page on Wikipedia.

I understand the importance of maintaining a constructive and respectful community on Wikipedia. However, recent actions by two mysterious editors, Canterbury Tail and Daniel, have raised concerns about the transparency and fairness of the editing process.

The situation came to my attention when I discovered that I, along with other users from Melbourne, have been blocked from accessing the Melbourne Shuffle talk page. I believe this restrictive measure is unwarranted and contradicts the principles of open collaboration that Wikipedia stands for.

The news about this issue has even made headlines in Indonesia, where two Wikipedia editors, Canterbury Tail and Daniel, attracted attention for their detective-like behavior, suspecting external involvement in Wikipedia's edits. This has led to questions about the transparency and fairness of Wikipedia's editing practices.

Of particular concern is the deletion of all references to the Kutip.co interview from the Melbourne Shuffle discussion page by Daniel. This action raises questions about the motives behind such deletions and gives the impression of protecting information rather than upholding the spirit of open knowledge sharing.

Another user has cast doubt on the authenticity of Kutip.co, labeling it as merely an entertainment site. While everyone is entitled to their opinions, it is essential to foster an environment where diverse perspectives can coexist, and discussions can take place without imposing unilateral blocks on users.

I kindly request a thorough review of the block on Melbourne users, including myself, from contributing to the Melbourne Shuffle talk page. It is crucial to ensure that such decisions are based on clear violations of conduct and not influenced by subjective judgments or suspicions.

I believe that my conduct on Wikipedia has been respectful and in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. The current block impedes my ability to contribute to discussions and share valuable insights on the Melbourne Shuffle, affecting the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and hope for a fair and transparent resolution that aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to open knowledge sharing.

Please include a decline or accept 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.

@Canterbury Tail and Daniel: FYI, looks like you've been mentioned on an Indonesian website. Link. No action needed, just thought it was interesting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole situation - and the behaviour of the individuals concerned - is delusional to the point of being hilarious. Daniel (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed TPA due to continued disruptive editing. Daniel (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Novoa is now famous in Indonesia for breaking the news to them and not us google maurice Melbourne shuffle then hit news.

Purple rain and black sky (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Purple rain and black sky Maurice Novoa was only discussed by a few media outlets but not the major ones in Indonesia and are you sure if he is the creator of the Melbourne shuffle? Or is it just based on his opinion? Badak Jawa (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Badak Jawa: thanks for organising the deletion of the Indonesian Wikipedia article for Novoa as yet more cross-wiki spam, and the removal of the nonsense content in the Melbourne shuffle article. This absolutely nonsensical promotional effort has been going on for over a year now using sockpuppets across multiple projects, so support of yourself and administrators on that project is much appreciated. Daniel (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel no problem Badak Jawa (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]