Hi 7curator78! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Masters of the Universe: Revelation 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. I previously warned you at the article talk page, but to ensure the notice is seen, and recorded as having been given to you at all, I have also posted it here for good measure. — Dædαlus+Contribs22:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you are still marking all edits as minor. Again, the minor edit feature is used for spelling fixes, not adding whole sections of content, especially ones that are currently under discussion. Please familiarize yourself with the above links. — Dædαlus+Contribs07:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war warning
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. 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. Artw (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alex 21 told me in the history section that after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. If you see in the Talk page of Masters of the Universe: Revelation Talk:Masters of the Universe: Revelation you will see I am discussing each sentence piece by piece with you. You did not object or stated each of my sentences was WP:UNDUE. Do you not want to discuss or what should be the next step? 7curator78 (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Hi, I see I have been blocked. It is okay to block me but adding me to the sockpuppet investigation has definitely hurt me. I used the second account out of mistake. I was the only one on one side of the debate and the pressure made me log into a new account. Intead of concealing this mistake, I openly acknowledged that was me so that no other user might be confused. I did not log into that account ever again for any vote stacking or talk page conversations. I literally stated the truth. Now that my name is in sockpuppet investigation a checkuser can find out all my other accounts and I could possibly be banned forever as they sort out each investigation. I acknowledge I have even more accounts than Fri74eodo but I did not engage in anything malicious in those accounts. I used the principles of WP:SOCKLEGIT I got a "clean start" with Fri74eodo because I felt awkward being the only one who tried to stop the pornography pictures from being posted in an album page and a pornography page at that time. Those pages were LiveJasmin and WAP (song). Since that was a controversial issue, I felt I couldn't edit continuously on that account. Also I read more about the "clean start" section of WP:SOCKLEGIT and realized that was the wrong issue. Privacy was the most concern in adding the accounts. Please don't let the checkusers see all my other accounts because then I am banned forever! And in my opinion I think I contributed quite well in Wikipedia and it would be so sad knowing once the checkuser comes to my name in the recent future I am banned indefinitely all because I acknowledged that I accidentally logged into a wrong account to revert an edit. 7curator78 (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that all of these accounts are legitimate, then it shouldn't be "awkward" to list them, so, again, please do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it through and I realized I actually might get banned. Because one of the accounts got banned for a week after I nominated a controversial page for deletion that had citations from blogspots etc. I was in a similar position like yesterday; just myself on one side of the debate and the comments I made caused someone to alert an adminstrator that I was here to WP:NOTHERE. Anyway I rather just wait for the the investigation to just pick me honestly and if the checkuser thinks I abused accounts so be it, just ban me. Thanks for everything. 7curator78 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only place where I can talk. I just wanted to point out that the reason why I was banned from my other account was me trying to explicate in two statements for a Article For Deletion section. That is the only place where I made a mistake. Just two statements for an Article for Deletion Section. I did not do anything illegal anywhere else. I tried my best to explain why the article should be deleted and I rambled on and I actually called them "criminals" without realizing WP:NPA. I hope the administrator see it as a mistake because I did not resort to any personal attack after that incident. I was encouraged to learn from that incident and change my ways.7curator78 (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're admitting not only that you are operating seventeen separate accounts, several of which you refuse to disclose, but also that you are using those accounts to circumvent a ban, then that is not a very compelling argument for reversing your ban. --RosicrucianTalk13:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't disclose the other accounts because this account's history shows I tried to remove pornography pictures from pornography pages. The stigma associated with that edit is not letting me disclose the other accounts because of my dignity. For a ban? What do you mean? I couldn't only edit after that ban was complete which was 1 week. I don't want to reverse any ban. I never excepted to be banned for edit warring. I was very civil in all my comments in the Talk Page and the Edit Warring Board. I am used to developing pages with blocks of paragraphs, and the article Master of Revelation barely had any paragraphs of information. So I thought why not edit this article especially since this could be my first time editing a controversial page. At the end of the day I was shocked I couldn't even add a single paragraph to the development section. Maybe warning me would have been more appropriate but I accept my penalty. I just want to be not part of a sock puppet investigation when I neither control a sock or a sock master. I don't edit with that mindset. I simply log in to one account to edit some Peruvian articles. Then next day I feel like editing some articles from another Region. So I login to one account specifically for that region articles etc. 7curator78 (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blablubbs: Please don't block me. The articles may be behaviorally related but I did not do anything illegal. All I did was create new accounts. It was simply me wanting to create a new account with a new username and resume editing as seen here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RedX8. I did not 1) Also if you look at my history I have contributed many articles and improvements to Wikipedia. I can never contribute again if you block me. I did not do block evasion, ballot stuffing, voting etc. 7curator78 (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin or the person who blocked you, just an SPI clerk. Checkuser evidence confirms that you used a total of 21 accounts, often to edit the same pages and sometimes in very quick succession ([1]). Many of them were also used concurrently, which is something very different from what happened at the SPI you linked to. To have the block lifted, read the guide to appealing blocks and appeal on the talk page of your original account, HaryanaMayil. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, one of the listed socks, 7falcon23 has independently received an indefinite hardblock. Hardblocks are intended for people, not just accounts, so creating a new account to get around this indef is block evasion, which is in itself justification for a block. You will need to successfully appeal the indefinite block to be permitted to edit or create more accounts. Writ Keeper⚇♔17:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not receive the stop symbol that I usually got when I was blocked in 7falcon23. Once that 1 week was finished, I realized when I clicked create a new account there was no blocking symbol. So I thought I could create a new account. 7curator78 (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but now you know that you are not allowed to create a new account until you have successfulyl appealed your indefinite block. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
