User talk:AimanAbir18plus

You may remember that when you were blocked from editing a while ago the message from the blocking administrator contained three main points: you must desist from edit warring; you must start responding to messages and taking part in discussions; if you continued in the same way you would be blocked again for a longer time. As you know you have continued to ignore what you have been told, on this page and on other pages such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and have failed to either respond to or take notice of messages. As you also know you have returned to edit warring. In view of those facts you must have expected to be blocked for a longer time, and that expectation has indeed been fulfilled.

However, things are, unfortunately, even worse than that, in two ways. Firstly, looking at the history of the account I see that there have been other concerns that you have been warned about, apart from those mentioned in the last block message, which were just part of the problems. Secondly, you have edit warred using a temporary account, and, according to an administrator who has made relevant checks, using a proxy. I don't have any doubt that you did that in the (rather naive) hope that you would thereby avoid scrutiny.

Because of those concerns, I don't think it would be sufficient to just block you for a somewhat longer time than the last block, and let you sit out the block, as you did last time. I have therefore blocked you indefinitely. The block may be removed if and when you can convince an administrator that you have taken notice of all the concerns about your editing, and will not repeat any of the problematic editing patterns. If you think you can do that, first read guide to appealing blocks and then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of this page, replacing "Your reason here" with appropriate text. JBW (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

AimanAbir18plus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

The following request was written through the unblock wizard.

Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?

I was blocked for edit warring.

If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?

When unblocked, I would engage in discussions and make constructive edits.

Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?

I will positively contribute to Wikipedia.

AimanAbir18plus (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were given a chance. You blew it. You've given us no reason here to believe it's worth giving you a third chance or that doing so would turn out any differently. I'm not sure you are taking this seriously. Yamla (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2026 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) In the interests of fairness I'm going to give you some very important tips - if you can follow them, that'll go a long way.

• Firstly, read the guide to appeals - that's going to explain everything you need to know
• Blocks are preventative, so you need to show admins there's nothing they need to prevent. You need to show that you understand why you were blocked, and what you should be doing instead of that problematic behaviour. For every aspect of disruption, explain:
  • Which of your edits led to your block? Select at least one from each type of disruption - show you understand what happened.
  • Why were they problematic? Show an understanding of the issues you've caused for other volunteers.
  • What should you have done instead/How will you make sure this doesn't happen again?

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

AimanAbir18plus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for edit warring. I realize now that repeatedly reverting without discussion violated the edit warring policy. I should have used the talk page to seek consensus instead. I understand this behavior harms the project, and I commit to discussing changes first and following dispute resolution processes in the future. Thank you for considering my unblock. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I think you should take the standard offer and re-apply in six months time with no more abuse of multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2026 (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.

AimanAbir18plus (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please don't use AI to write your appeal for you, the administrators need to see that you as a person understand why you were blocked and know how to avoid the same thing happening in future. The AI wasn't blocked - you were - so you need to write your own appeal. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of the Temple of Zeus.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Virtual reality pornography is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged into Pornography.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual reality pornography until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 07:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)