Hello, FDJK001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 22:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Just letting you know why you've been reverted and hatted at the Gamergate Controversy talk page:
The top warning includes: Also, the article and this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals would not be subject to any "revert-rule" counting.)
Sorry. ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 22:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
If not still then it's okay, I'll just wait a little longer.
FDJK001 ( talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
FDJK001 ( talk) 23:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for caring anyway, Acroterion. FDJK001 ( talk) 23:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Since I have legitimate trouble remembering how to create a title and how to distinguish between a major or mi FDJK001 ( talk) 03:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC).
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
11:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)FDJK001 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I must be very unintelligent to see that none of the reasons above for which I have been blocked match my actions if rational beings populate the world. I see the same user who's been picking on me for several months now not only exaggerating what I've done, but straight up lying about me returning to trolling (maybe that truthful message he deleted from his talkpage didn't fit his forced beliefs and so deleted it to try and prove an empty point). When he said "gaming sanctions", I think he's talking about me practicing my minor edits with me doing (+1) edits on my own talk page. I saw nothing wrong with modifying my own talk page. Also, I didn't know at the time trolls in Wikipedia invaded it, so I must have been labeled so.
And what does he mean by "sockpuppet of Dandtiks69"? Because we share a computer? I go and drag myself to his place, from places far away from internet, fix up edits made by real trolls, and I get treated like this?
This is why an uninvolved editor must come and unblock me. Nobody I knew here in Wikipedia will every hear of me again, I'll just talk to other editors. FDJK001 ( talk) 00:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Uninvolved editor here, declining your request. What I see in this request is a confirmation of everything you've been blocked for, hence no reason to unblock. Max Semenik ( talk) 01:30, 7 August 2015 (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.
FDJK001 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The previous "uninvolved" editor was pretty vague when saying I proved myself wrong and deserved every reason to stay blocked, so I'll be kinder this time. What I see people thinking is that my record proves everything about me, and so any mistake I do is an excuse to block me! I am always mistrusted and unwelcome even when I have legitly edited various pages. So what I'm going to say in this e-mail is sorry for my past mistakes, sorry for trying to "troll" people, and sorry for trying to find loopholes in rules (it was doing it in good faith by evading unfair rules, but it's considered otherwise.). Nothing of this sort will happen again, and I won't bother editors again. Only edit pages. Correctly. FDJK001 ( talk) 05:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
So you tried to evade a rule because you felt it shouldn't apply to you, then you lied about doing so, and then you claim you acted in good faith? Seriously? Sorry, I see no reason to believe your claims. Huon ( talk) 01:48, 11 August 2015 (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.
FDJK001 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Please review WP:NOTTHEM. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:50, 18 August 2015 (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.
FDJK001 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
So yeah, everything I did 4 months ago was wrong and inappropriate for an encyclopedia and I will never do it again to avoid being blocked this long. FDJK001 ( talk) 18:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Given your statement above ("I don't know if you are asking me to lie in my next unblock request or something, but I'll do as you ask"), I think you've run out of whatever credibility you might have had (if any). As I see no chance of this going anywhere constructive, I am revoking your talk page access. Kinu t/ c 17:22, 8 September 2015 (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.
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Hello, FDJK001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 22:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Just letting you know why you've been reverted and hatted at the Gamergate Controversy talk page:
The top warning includes: Also, the article and this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals would not be subject to any "revert-rule" counting.)
Sorry. ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 22:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
If not still then it's okay, I'll just wait a little longer.
FDJK001 ( talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
FDJK001 ( talk) 23:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for caring anyway, Acroterion. FDJK001 ( talk) 23:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Since I have legitimate trouble remembering how to create a title and how to distinguish between a major or mi FDJK001 ( talk) 03:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC).
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
11:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)FDJK001 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I must be very unintelligent to see that none of the reasons above for which I have been blocked match my actions if rational beings populate the world. I see the same user who's been picking on me for several months now not only exaggerating what I've done, but straight up lying about me returning to trolling (maybe that truthful message he deleted from his talkpage didn't fit his forced beliefs and so deleted it to try and prove an empty point). When he said "gaming sanctions", I think he's talking about me practicing my minor edits with me doing (+1) edits on my own talk page. I saw nothing wrong with modifying my own talk page. Also, I didn't know at the time trolls in Wikipedia invaded it, so I must have been labeled so.
And what does he mean by "sockpuppet of Dandtiks69"? Because we share a computer? I go and drag myself to his place, from places far away from internet, fix up edits made by real trolls, and I get treated like this?
This is why an uninvolved editor must come and unblock me. Nobody I knew here in Wikipedia will every hear of me again, I'll just talk to other editors. FDJK001 ( talk) 00:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Uninvolved editor here, declining your request. What I see in this request is a confirmation of everything you've been blocked for, hence no reason to unblock. Max Semenik ( talk) 01:30, 7 August 2015 (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.
FDJK001 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The previous "uninvolved" editor was pretty vague when saying I proved myself wrong and deserved every reason to stay blocked, so I'll be kinder this time. What I see people thinking is that my record proves everything about me, and so any mistake I do is an excuse to block me! I am always mistrusted and unwelcome even when I have legitly edited various pages. So what I'm going to say in this e-mail is sorry for my past mistakes, sorry for trying to "troll" people, and sorry for trying to find loopholes in rules (it was doing it in good faith by evading unfair rules, but it's considered otherwise.). Nothing of this sort will happen again, and I won't bother editors again. Only edit pages. Correctly. FDJK001 ( talk) 05:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
So you tried to evade a rule because you felt it shouldn't apply to you, then you lied about doing so, and then you claim you acted in good faith? Seriously? Sorry, I see no reason to believe your claims. Huon ( talk) 01:48, 11 August 2015 (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.
FDJK001 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Please review WP:NOTTHEM. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:50, 18 August 2015 (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.
FDJK001 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
So yeah, everything I did 4 months ago was wrong and inappropriate for an encyclopedia and I will never do it again to avoid being blocked this long. FDJK001 ( talk) 18:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Given your statement above ("I don't know if you are asking me to lie in my next unblock request or something, but I'll do as you ask"), I think you've run out of whatever credibility you might have had (if any). As I see no chance of this going anywhere constructive, I am revoking your talk page access. Kinu t/ c 17:22, 8 September 2015 (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.
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))