User talk:Normal rookie

Maximus Ongkili

I see you reverted my edit on Maximus Ongkili, why, it restored stylistic issues? DervotNum4 (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I reverted due to some editing issue on your change previously, early have some vandalism editing before you. Normal rookie (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see that now. I've gone and restored the whole indent thing, trying to standardise this. DervotNum4 (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Question on state titles

Hello! I presume you are a Malay and have great interest on subject of honours. I have always been intrigued by the fact how the state titles are used and governed. I know that within a particular state, say for example, Pahang, the recipients will use the highest title they have from Pahang. But what about at the federal level? Today Fadillah Yusof received the Datuk Amar title from Sarawak and he belongs to that state. So will he be known as "Datuk Amar Fadillah Yusof" from now onwards or continued to be known as "Dato' Sri Fadillah Yusof" which is accompanied with the SSAP honour. Oritsu.me (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Normal rookie. Thank you for your work on Mohamed Farid Mohamed Zawawi. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Since it falls under WP:BLP, please add more sources and footnotes to back up each claim with a reliable source. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

ANI

Hi - there is a discussion at ANI regarding some unexplained reverts you have been making. Please could you take a look? The thread is at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Normal_rookie. thank you. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Why, @Normal rookie are you not participating in this discussion, while still editing elsewhere? I was going to suggest a lighter punishment for your behaviour, but I changed my mind when I realised you had chosen to ignore that discussion. Nfitz (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Normal rookie Please come back to the ANI discussion, this is really important. It looks like you'll be given a no-reversion restriction, your lack of participation is a reason for most editors voting for this sanction against you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Normal rookie. Thank you for your work on Ahmad Bhari Abd Rahman. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Since it falls under WP:BLP, please add more sources and footnotes to back up each claim with a reliable source. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edits you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

or in the visual editor:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Describe what you changed

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

You are now subject to an editing restriction

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you are now subject to a "0RR" restriction on your editing. You are reminded that a 'revert' is defined as any edit...that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Do these count as reverts?[1] [2] Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The second, I would say it falls under the exception of 'reverting obvious vandalism', assuming the 1950 date is the correct birth date. The first, however, is absolutely a revert. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violation of your WP:0RR editing restriction, as you did at Azlanii Royal Family Order. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger - Oh wow... whelp, the message I left below was just a little too late. The message I left for this user still applies. If they continue to violate the community sanction imposed, the blocks will continue, and each for a longer duration for every occurrence. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Oshwah: No worries - edit conflicts happen, and hopefully your message will explain things well enough they can become a productive contributor in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger - Thanks; I really hope that it does. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why I am so lucky to get editing restriction. What I tell is you guys are very absurd as trust a user who joined a few days not a user who joined 4 years. Normal rookie (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

This user ~2025-31580-18 is suspecting doing vandalism. Normal rookie (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Some stern advice...

Hi Normal rookie! We haven't met before, but I wanted to introduce myself and take a few moments to talk to you about what's going on, share the exact situation that we're in right now with you, and set clear expectations with you regarding what the next steps will be if these expectations are not met. I took some time to review your contributions to the Anwar Ibrahim cabinet and other articles, as well as the two discussions that were started at ANI that expressed concerns regarding your behavior and conduct that involves this article.

Not all of your edits have been constructive. On numerous occasions, you've reverted changes that other editors have attempted to add and with no explanation from you at all as to why. In addition, other editors have attempted to contact you multiple times in order to discuss these concerns regarding your behavior and your editing conduct. All of these attempts at reaching out to you have been left with absolutely no response from you at all. In addition, you've continued to revert changes made by other editors, and despite the very reasonable attempts at trying to get you to stop the disruptive conduct.

Because of your continued engagement in disruptive reverts to other users without any response or explanation from you at all, the community has decided that they have exhausted all reasonable attempts at adjusting your behavior, and that the next logical step in order to stop the disruption is to take action against your ability to continue the behavior formally. The community, by consensus, has imposed a complete prohibition upon you from reverting any changes that are made by other editors of any kind and in any way, shape, or form (outside the normal exceptions of course). In a nutshell, if another editor makes a constructive modification to any article and at any time, you are prohibited from undoing, reverting, rolling back, or otherwise reversing any part of their changes, regardless of how small it is.

If you violate this community sanction, and if you engage in the reverting, rolling back, undoing, or reversal of another editor's change to an article of any kind, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and without any kind of warning or notification being given to you beforehand. You are pretty much as far past a "final warning" measure as you can possibly be. These disruptive reverts to other editors will stop, one way or another.

I highly encourage you and implore you to please respond here and open a dialogue with the community, and at least communicate with us. This will begin to help us to help you! Nobody wants to block your account or impose any sanctions against you from being able to constructively contribute to this project. Please, if you can do so, we would really appreciate it if you could talk to us. It will really help the both of us out and allow us to figure things out so that we call can get back to editing. :-)

Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Appealing unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was enforcing a guideline (e.g., reverting vandalism). My edits were in good faith, not vandalism or disruption.

Decline reason:

Please read my comments below. Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2025 (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.

Normal rookie (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

 Administrator note Link to ANI discussion for reviewing admin's perusal -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Normal rookie: It is plain from your comments at the ANI thread that you 1) think you WP:own the article, 2) that you know the other editor was not vandalizing and 3) that you were editing disruptively. I will therefore decline your unblock request. Please take the time to read and understand WP:BRD and WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. Please read and be able to explain what a zero revert restriction is and how you violated yours. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Everthing need to discuus first and later revert, sometimes need accept somebody work. The zero-revert rule (0RR) means a complete prohibition on reverts (as defined for the purpose of the three-revert rule) applied to one or more editors. Normal rookie (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Good you've got the first half of the question; now you need to explain how you - personally - violated that restriction, after it was placed on you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I violated the restriction by attempt revert a work by this user ~2025-31580-18. Normal rookie (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Good, we're getting there! So if you were unblocked, would you agree to the zero revert restriction and definitely follow it this time?

@Deepfriedokra Would they need to submit a new appeal if they agree and this discussion is sufficient? It took a while to get here so I'm not 100% sure, I don't want to waste anyone's time or give unfair expectations. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Which means I am still cannot revert someone work even I suspected vandalism? Normal rookie (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Even this user ~2025-31580-18 is suspected vandalism, I cannot revert? What a shame. With all due respect, you guys rather believe a user who registered a few days not a user registered 4 years. Normal rookie (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that you would be able to revert very obvious vandalism, I'm not 100% certain but an admin would be able to say for define. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The important part is obvious. If any reasonable good faith editor would say an edit is not vandalism then it cannot be reverted. If in doubt, leave it and someone else (with no sanctions) can revert or ask someone else on their talk page to take a look. Ultraodan (T, C) 02:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Normal rookie I'd also like to ask you to please read the essay Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough whenever you have a moment (specifically the second half of the page). Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, about the zero revert restriction how to lift ban. Normal rookie (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, have you read the links that Deepfriedokra gave you (click on the blue text)? After you've done this, you'll need to answer their question.

Since you broke the zero revert restriction (0RR) that you were given, you need to prove to an admin that you understand what the restriction is, how it works and what you did to break that ban.

They cannot unblock you until you can prove that you understand what happened and won't do it again. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Where is the question? Normal rookie (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Look above my first comment or click here: [3] Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The zero revert restriction (0RR) how long will lift ban? Normal rookie (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Only when you can answer the question properly and prove you understand the problem and won't do it again.

I'm a bit worried that you have difficulty understanding English and that's why you can't answer the question.

Have you thought about editing Wikipedia in your native language instead, where you can learn how to edit properly? You can find a list and can choose any you like from this List of Wikipedias.

If you edit a project in your native language, you'll find it much easier to understand what's going on and talk to other editors. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course I understand English, I try to locate it. Normal rookie (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, please do so! Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I know I sometimes I am a bit wrong, but I tried make the article pages better. Normal rookie (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

This user ~2025-31580-18 I suspected is doing vandalism. Normal rookie (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I dont find the questions. Perhaps you can point it out for me. I really tired to go through this. I just want to quickly lift ban the zero revert restriction (0RR) and start to work, because there are too many vandalism at some article and some unregistered user. Normal rookie (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, it's the second half of this post:

"...Please take the time to read and understand WP:BRD and WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. Please read and be able to explain what a zero revert restriction is and how you violated yours. Thank you."

You need to click on every blue link and read the page that opens, because those pages will explain what happened and give you the answer.

You then look at the warnings on your Talk page and use the knowledge you've gained from the blue links to answer the second sentence, which asks you to explain: "...what a zero revert restriction is and how you violated yours." Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Blue Sonnet: Been away from keyboard. Busy in real life. (Sigh) I see the question is moot. (Don't feel bad about trying to help someone. Just remember, "no good deed goes unpunished," in this life.) @Normal rookie: Two items. 1) Out of curiosity, what does "technical issue" mean? FWIW, whatever it means, it is not listed as an exception to the no revert rules. 2) It looks like you have problems reading and comprehending English. (For instance, dropping pronouns in sentences and not understanding your editing restriction.) If English is not your best language, you would be better off editing a Wikipedia written in your best language. (I see you have edited the Malay and Chinese language Wikipedias.) If there is some other reason, you should get help for it in real life. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Thank you, thinking about it I was more disappointed at the opportunity and time that they they wasted, now I think about it. BTW We previously discussed possible language issues and other Wikipedias, but Normal rookie insisted they understood English here - honestly speaking, whilst they may understand English it's not to the level needed here, considering our protracted discussion. I've also given them a chance to explain the nine reverts of different edits with individually-written edit summaries below. I'm kinda interested to see what they say. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Jeffrey Kitingan

Why are you bulk reverting edits on Jeffrey Kitingan including mine which was to remove a deleted template... So you reverted my edit and restored a template that no longer exist with NO explanation. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It was a technical mistake, my apologies. Normal rookie (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Plus, there are vandalism on the article. Normal rookie (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You CLEARLY have not learned from your restrictions and previous blocks, nor the advice to slow the hell down.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I already explained is a technical issue. Normal rookie (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No. That's not an explanation. You CLAIM it was a "technical issue." Exactly what happened? Your account doesn't just make reverts by itself, while you're off doing the dishes or something. Those are commands you are physically entering. (And, for that matter, if you accidentally made a revert, what stopped you from reversing your own action?) Ravenswing 04:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This contradicts their post below the block notice, where they appear to say they thought they didn't have the restriction at all.

I don't know what's going on here, but I'd really like to find out why I've apparently wasted the past two days. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued violations of your WP:0RR editing restriction.

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 ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Why? I though I lift ban from 0RR. Normal rookie (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, you the block ended with the 0RR still in place.

I asked you if you understood what it was and knew the 0RR would stay in place.

Nobody said the 0RR would be removed at any point.

Look at this and this. You were explicitly told you cannot revert, unless it's very obvious vandalism.

You either don't understand what's going on or deliberately chose to ignore what we said.

I spent several days trying to help you understand this. I can't keep trying to help you if you won't listen to me, so I'm afraid that you'll need to deal with any future unblock appeals on your own. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Your last block for violating 0RR expired. 0RR stays until the community decides that it isn't needed anymore. I expect you won't be unblocked until you can clearly show that you understand 0RR and will follow it. Ultraodan (T, C) 04:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a case of WP:CIR... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Plus the reverts apparently weren't even valid.

I think the Standard offer is the only way forward now, with at least six months of editing on another Wikipedia project as evidence. Something like Simple English Wikipedia ideally, so we can verify a sufficient amount of English literacy.

(Sigh) I'm going to bed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You know what, I am done for this. I though I can revert a vandalism work, and you guys told me that I am still in 0RR. At the last article, I fixed my revert and you guys didn't seen. You guys are seen that me is doing revert without explaination. How am gonna explain. Explain I revert because a user is always making vandalism. One thing, you guys didn't investigate this user ~2025-31580-18 instead ignore and investigate me. What a shame. You guys are really funny think I am a newly registered user, I register 4 years ago from a newbie to a senior, although sometimes I don't think I am a senior. At today day I finally can revert a user's vandalism, you guys told me that I am still in 0RR. I don't know what is the standard on blocking a user. You guys are making a mistake. Well, I guess my career in wikipedia ends here, I seen this as take a break from wikipedia. That all I say. Normal rookie (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Facepalm WP:COMPETENCE Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It is an accident, I though your edit it has conflict with my revert, later I found out is no, but I fixed back. This is not the ending that I am gonna deserve. Normal rookie (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What I saying is you guys are making a big mistake. Normal rookie (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

it wasn't one revert, it was nine, with separate edit summaries . If it was the same revert with the same edit summary in the same minute then perhaps I'd understand that the system got stuck, but that's not what I'm seeing here.

I'm looking at:

• multiple reverts over several minutes
• different people reverted
• different edits reverted
• different written edit summaries

I genuinely don't understand how they could be due to a single "technical error". This is you taking multiple different actions over time.

You've been asked to explain what happened above but you haven't.

How could this possibly be a single technical error? If you could give a good explanation then perhaps we can reconsider, but I don't know how this could feasibly be one technical error. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=I realise what I was wrong, I will follow the guidence of wikipedia and 0RR policy.}} Normal rookie (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

That template is broken, but I wouldn't suggest submitting it anyway because it will be rejected as insufficient. You keep misunderstanding what the problem is, so dating "I won't do it again" isn't useful - we hadn't no proof that you understand what "it" even is.

Before appealing:

• Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks,
• Explain what a zero revert restriction is and how you'll adhere to it going forwards,
• Explain how multiple individual, separate reverts were caused by a single technical issue,

Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, here's the history:

1. Revert where you manually wrote "undo first later I will come back" in the edit summary
2. Revert AnomieBot with a different edit summary of "undo first"
3. Revert of another user where you wrote "undo first" again
4. Revert another user with the new edit summary "vandalism" (this doesn't seem like obvious vandalism to me)
5. Reverting #1 with no summary.

How the heck did all of this happen? We need an explanation - if it's a genuine technical error then fine, but it looks like you did #1 on purpose, which is a breach of your restriction. #2 was just wrong.

I don't understand why you did #3 or #4 and #5 is when you tried to undo #1.

If you were only trying to revert #4, I'm not sure how that one was obvious vandalism and I'm concerned that you caused so much collateral damage along the way. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

In 1, 2&3 I was impulsive at that time when I revert this "vandalism", I didn't do checking before proceed

4 It seem obvious vandalism, If you look clearly, The user had the sentenced references removed, even though is correct.

in 5 I remember I had put minor edit, maybe I forgeted. Normal rookie (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok, so the first three were you thinking each one was vandalism? Three people had vandalised the article? And #5 you didn't think was vandalism, but a normal minor edit? Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

First three is I though there is conflict at the vandalism when I revert due to that I use my phone not my laptop, therefore I made a mistake

And #5 is a mistake work, just as I mention it I though there is conflict at the vandalism when I revert due to that I use my phone not my laptop, therefore I made a mistake. Normal rookie (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

May I know that the reason that I given is valid? Normal rookie (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It could be possible, although I'm not experienced enough in the technical side of Wikipedia to be certain. That argument would rely on whether the first edit you tried to revert was actually clear and obvious vandalism & I'm not sure why you kept stopping to write new edit summaries.

What did you mean when you wrote "undo first later I will come back?" That makes it look like you were intending to do more than one revert or take further action. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I wrote "undo first later I will come back?" which means at that time I though the change is has conflict with revert, therefor I write that undo first latwr I will come back. Normal rookie (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to give a fuller explanation, unfortunately I don't think there's anything more I can do here as I'm not an admin and cannot review blocks myself. If you choose to submit another appeal in future, please try to give a full explanation of what happened in the appeal itself. That way, the admin doesn't need to dig through our long discussion to understand what happened.

I'd recommend that you follow the standard offer first, with at least six months of editing on another Wikipedia project (see List of Wikipedias to find one you like) - this will give you the best chance of a successful appeal, but it's up to you. I wish you well. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)