User talk:Guxhuli

Welcome!

Hi Guxhuli! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! GoldRomean (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Do you perhaps know how can one translate the "Show all" label when maps are displayed in an Infobox (in an article about a city e.g.)? Thanks Guxhuli (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for returning to edit-warring on the same article as before, almost as soon as the block for doing so expired.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW This is a biased decision! I didn't break any rules this time! Guxhuli (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, this time I added an official source to the article which was rejected without any valid reason! I was accused of having an agenda without any bases! Is a citation valid only if one specific person says so? I didn't engage in any edit warring, nor did I break any Wikipedia rules! I think you need to review the block again please, as it consitutes a violation of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy!

Decline reason:

I have used the CheckUser tool and my finding is that it is Highly likely that you have abused multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2025 (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.

Guxhuli (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul the Apostle

@StephenMacky1 I am replying to your comment here because thanks to you I got blocked unjustly.

The WP:PSTS clearly states:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.

It doesn't say they are forbidden. The article was as well not interpreted in any other way than it was originally cited. So how exactly was the rule broken again?

And what was your reason again for not accepting it?

I am actually pretty serious about editing here. You on the other hand are clearly having an agenda here! Guxhuli (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim that they are forbidden. Read the whole thing. Read WP:PRIMARY. You cannot interpret them without a secondary source. Either way, you have plenty of time to read now. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StephenMacky1 That is the thing. It was not an interpretation. It was a straightforward, descriptive statements of facts cited directly from the church's page! Read point 3 there Guxhuli (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guxhuli, when you're blocked, the talk page is only left open to discuss issues relating to your block or a possible unblock request. If you continue to argue about content while you are blocked, there's a good chance that an administrator will remove your talk page access, which will make it much harder for you to be unblocked since you'll only be able to communicate using WP:UTRS. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whatever, does it make any difference?! I got blocked unjustly anyway.. your decisions are not made in good faith, that is pretty clear to me now Guxhuli (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guxhuli. 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.

Izno (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]