User talk:Alfdeckse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Information icon Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to discourage editor, i was trying to add a caption on Ernest Augustus lead image as there were clear author and date but he/she keeps reverting it, what should I do? Alfdeckse (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
There's a section on the article talk page at Talk:Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover#Image where you can make your case. DrKay (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Alfdeckse (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering about something
"Portrait by (name)"
"Photograph by (name)"
Some user said that adding caption like this make the article worse and it's "unnecessary content" though I think adding caption just make the lead image more clear since the image can sometimes get mislabeled, adding some known info help to clarify and make the image more trustworthy and it's add information that can't been seen just by looking at the image
Is that an alright caption if the date is unknown but the author is known or I should just leave it or add something else instead?
Again thanks for your time Alfdeckse (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Imperial Noble Consort Chunhui
added a link pointing to Giuseppe Castiglione
Imperial Noble Consort Shujia
added a link pointing to Giuseppe Castiglione

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

@DrKay What sockpuppet? Can you explain, please? Alfdeckse (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were BlueDIAMOND20s but am not so sure now. I have undone the block. DrKay (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
@DrKay Ok, thanks Alfdeckse (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zaman Shah Durrani, a link pointing to the disambiguation page was Durbaradded.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yu the Great, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ma Lin was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

Stop icon You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria It's been over 24 hours since my last revert on this page. Alfdeckse (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Narai

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Narai, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Suriyenthrathibodi

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Suriyenthrathibodi, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Phetracha

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Phetracha, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:BlueDIAMOND20s per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueDIAMOND20s. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Girth Summit (blether) 12:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
@Girth Summit I believe that I have been wrongly blocked, and I don't know user BlueDIAMOND20s. Can you please explain your reasoning why? Alfdeckse (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure yet about the connection to BlueDIAMOND20s. I am confident that you previously edited as Rrrivjwjhv, and were blocked for sockpuppetry under that account. Girth Summit (blether) 13:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Block appealing

cross icon
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).

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

Request reason:

When I start editing I didn't read or know any rules, and I didn't know about edit warring or sockpuppetry. I just like history, so when I saw wikipedia I instantly wanna edit it. I already try appealing block many times but it never went through, so I'm now here. I am truly sorry for the many disruption I caused, my intention is just to make Wikipedia better for everyone, I really wanted to help edit wikipedia, please give me a second chance, now that I have read the rules, I promise I will follow them in all future edit and I would never use a sock puppet again. And yes I previously edited as Rrrivjwjhv, JjEeEeNn and GeaurnsAlfdeckse (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You must have known, since at least December 2025 when you were blocked as Rrrivjwjhv, that sockpuppetry was against the rules. And yet you created this account anyway. I'm sorry, I don't buy your "I didn't know" excuse. Your best bet here is probably the standard offer. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:34, 11 March 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.

icon
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

When I created this account it was before December 2025 and I really didn't know, but now I do. My intention isn't to cause disruption or abuse, I just wanted to edit and help out. Please give me a second chance, all of my edits are never meant to cause any disruption. I really do feel sorry for what I did, and I swear not to do it again, please. Alfdeckse (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=When I created this account it was before December 2025 and I really didn't know, but now I do. My intention isn't to cause disruption or abuse, I just wanted to edit and help out. Please give me a second chance, all of my edits are never meant to cause any disruption. I really do feel sorry for what I did, and I swear not to do it again, please. [[User:Alfdeckse|Alfdeckse]] ([[User talk:Alfdeckse#top|talk]]) 14:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=When I created this account it was before December 2025 and I really didn't know, but now I do. My intention isn't to cause disruption or abuse, I just wanted to edit and help out. Please give me a second chance, all of my edits are never meant to cause any disruption. I really do feel sorry for what I did, and I swear not to do it again, please. [[User:Alfdeckse|Alfdeckse]] ([[User talk:Alfdeckse#top|talk]]) 14:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=When I created this account it was before December 2025 and I really didn't know, but now I do. My intention isn't to cause disruption or abuse, I just wanted to edit and help out. Please give me a second chance, all of my edits are never meant to cause any disruption. I really do feel sorry for what I did, and I swear not to do it again, please. [[User:Alfdeckse|Alfdeckse]] ([[User talk:Alfdeckse#top|talk]]) 14:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

The opportunity for a second chance, when sockpuppeting is involved, is the WP:OFFER as Pppery suggested. Sockpuppetry is one of those things where the community standard for which a demonstrable show of good faith, not a simple promise, is frequently needed in order to regain trust. You should take the WP:OFFER, as it's very likely your best path back to editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs I accept the WP:OFFER and acknowledge my past misconduct. I will only use this account, and I will follow any rules or restrictions placed on my editing. Thank you. Alfdeckse (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

If you're following the WP:OFFER as Pppery suggested, then that would put six months as September 17th. Any edits to English Wikipedia are generally cosidered to "reset" the six months, and any sockpuppeting attempts whatsoever will tend to make it much harder to invoke. If you're able to edit another WMF project (not English Wikipedia) in the interim, and demonstrate your ability to contribute as an editor, that would be even more helpful in an unblock request in six months. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI