Hello, I'm
Mellk. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Seven Sisters (Moscow), but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Mellk (
talk)
15:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Seven Sisters (Moscow). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Mellk (
talk)
15:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Mellk ( talk) 10:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Joseph Stalin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mellk ( talk) 09:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
El_C
06:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry, but the only one edit warring is FromCzech. I edited the page and added an adequate citation, and he engaged in nonsensical arbitrary arguments to revert sensible changes. The only one who should be p-blocked is him. The data is not obsolete, it was collected in 2022, many other cities on the list have data going back to 2021, and hard-core census data is always the most reliable vs momentary approximations/forecasts. Not to mention, I wasn't even driven by any personal motivation but simply bringing the list to the figure listed on the city's wiki page! Another editor has also brought up this weird inconsistency a few months ago on the "List of cities in the European Union by population" talk page. Wikipedia should be consistent. There is simply nothing to discuss and FromCzech should stop obstructing. Perhaps he is Romanian and feels hurt by the results of the latest census, I do not care, ordnung muss sein! Galehautt ( talk) 12:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No grounds for unblock provided. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 02:10, 30 June 2023 (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.
Due to continued aggression and attacks during the block, from the last sentence in the above unblock request: Perhaps he is Romanian and feels hurt by the results of the latest census, I do not care, ordnung muss sein!
, to some of the latest at ANI: Being right settles the discussion. That's how it works with normal people, at least. FromCzech clearly strays from normal
. This isn't an acceptable manner in which to conduct oneself. I've converted your block to site wide and reset the timer. Please note that any further hostility and personal attacks on your part may result in having your access even to editing this talk page revoked (which in fact I considered doing) as well as the seeing the block possibly extended (possibly for an indefinite duration). Please follow the steps outlined in
WP:DR to resolve any outstanding disputes. That's what everyone is expected to do. No one gets a special pass due to... reasons. Thanks.
El_C
01:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Poland, you may be blocked from editing. Merangs ( talk) 15:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to TVP World. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 06:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Gitz (
talk) (
contribs)
09:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 15:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇
20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Writing "piss off" at my own talk page is not a personal attack. Compare IceWhiz and his harassment campaigns against users like me. I have not done anything wrong on the Stalin page and racked up enough support on the Talk page to carry out at least the minimal edit that I applied which just fixes the flow of the first paragraph and deletes the euphemistic formatting of the hyperlink to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Mellk is engaging in an edit war to whitewash Stalin contrary to the wishes of users on the talk page. I am being harassed and just defending myself. Galehautt ( talk) 20:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your conduct, both in personal attacks, and on articles and Talk pages, is unacceptable. Whether you were harassed by IceWhiz or not is irrelevant, but you are not being harassed here. It is you who is doing the harassing. Be careful: if you make another unblock request or continue to make comments on this Talk page that accept zero responsibility for your actions. If you persist, you may have Talk page access revoked. Bbb23 ( talk) 21:03, 24 July 2023 (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.
Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I acknowledge the certain excesses mentioned and apologize for them at the same time standing by my edits and highlighting the support I have on the Talk page for more severe edits than the one I applied. I promise to be a fully exemplary Wikipedian from now on and expect the same of others while requesting a lifting or at least reducing of this severe punishment I have received. Thank you. Galehautt ( talk) 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Galehautt ( talk) 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Blocks are not intended as a punishment, but are a means to prevent and stop disruptive actions. We don't need you to be a "fully exemplary Wikipedian", we just need you to stop the personal attacks. This request doesn't convince me that will happen. 331dot ( talk) 08:43, 25 July 2023 (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.
Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I called the indefinite block a severe punishment, nothing less, because a temporary block would act in my view most justly as a means to prevent and stop my disruptive actions, and let it be known that there is no disagreement between me and the administration and I trust your (the administration's) judgment fully. And yes, *by fully exemplary I mean one who stops the personal attacks.* I apologize for any past personal attacks carried out by me. With the misunderstandings cleared, the rest of my message is as in the last one and I beg for mercy. Galehautt ( talk) 21:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Accept reason:
OK. I'll assume good faith and unblock. Of course we'll be noticing if any of the nastiness resumes. Attack ideas all you want; don't attack other Wikipedia volunteers. ("Piss off" isn't what got you blocked, by the way.) --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇
13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What personal attacks toward what users? Beg your pardon? You told me to attack ideas. I request a return to the previous stage. I'm a man of my word. Galehautt ( talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Calling people names is not acceptable. You've been given several chances now, but if you can't work with other people without resorting to name-calling (e.g. fanboys, tankies) then this isn't the project for you. – bradv 04:09, 27 July 2023 (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.
Galehautt ( talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Which people am I calling names now, I'm confused? I criticized the idea of being a fanboy of a war criminal. And I noted that the article doesn't seem to garner interest of a diverse group of editors. Admin Jpgordon told me attack ideas all you want. I'm a man of my word, there is some confusion here. I received Jpgordon's word and keep mine... I sincerely, politely request unblocking as there does not seem to be grounds for my block. Galehautt ( talk) 07:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am thinking that the only way out of this is for a topic ban from making edits related to Stalin; I hope a broader one is not needed. 331dot ( talk) 08:11, 27 July 2023 (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.
Please place new posts at the bottom for proper discussion flow. The Reply function is not designed for making unblock requests(certain formatting issues are introduced like duplicating your signature), it would help if you opened the edit window directly. 331dot ( talk) 08:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have still not received a reasonable explanation for my indefinite block. I did not personally attack anyone in particular. I followed Jpgordon's recommendation of attacking ideas to a T. I'm a fully exemplary Wikipedian now and request unblocking, no particular person can feel attacked. Galehautt ( talk) 19:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There's no chance unblock requests like this will succeed. Yamla ( talk) 20:43, 27 July 2023 (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.
Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry. There must be some kind of inconsequence here. Either on my part or on part of the administration, some kind of goalpost-moving. I was blocked after I did personally call out the user Mellk. I was unblocked after a while for reasons visible above. Jpgordon told me to attack ideas, not people. I was unblocked and did not call out any single person since and have engaged in meritocratic arguments and nothing else. Unless a new explicit guideline is highlighted that I will have to stick to from now on, assuming everyone else does too, isn't my word that I shall keep to the guideline provided by Jpgordon enough? I request to be unblocked based on Jpgordon's guideline and my keeping with it, otherwise I request to be provided with a new guideline I will have to stick to to be unblocked and stay that way. Apologies for any misunderstanding that may have arised. Galehautt ( talk) 21:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is a feeble attempt at sophistic wikilawyering. Bbb23 ( talk) 01:10, 28 July 2023 (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.
I'm a fully exemplary Wikipedian now and request unblocking, no particular person can feel attackedis trolling. TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Hello, I'm
Mellk. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Seven Sisters (Moscow), but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Mellk (
talk)
15:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Seven Sisters (Moscow). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Mellk (
talk)
15:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Mellk ( talk) 10:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Joseph Stalin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mellk ( talk) 09:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
El_C
06:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry, but the only one edit warring is FromCzech. I edited the page and added an adequate citation, and he engaged in nonsensical arbitrary arguments to revert sensible changes. The only one who should be p-blocked is him. The data is not obsolete, it was collected in 2022, many other cities on the list have data going back to 2021, and hard-core census data is always the most reliable vs momentary approximations/forecasts. Not to mention, I wasn't even driven by any personal motivation but simply bringing the list to the figure listed on the city's wiki page! Another editor has also brought up this weird inconsistency a few months ago on the "List of cities in the European Union by population" talk page. Wikipedia should be consistent. There is simply nothing to discuss and FromCzech should stop obstructing. Perhaps he is Romanian and feels hurt by the results of the latest census, I do not care, ordnung muss sein! Galehautt ( talk) 12:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No grounds for unblock provided. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 02:10, 30 June 2023 (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.
Due to continued aggression and attacks during the block, from the last sentence in the above unblock request: Perhaps he is Romanian and feels hurt by the results of the latest census, I do not care, ordnung muss sein!
, to some of the latest at ANI: Being right settles the discussion. That's how it works with normal people, at least. FromCzech clearly strays from normal
. This isn't an acceptable manner in which to conduct oneself. I've converted your block to site wide and reset the timer. Please note that any further hostility and personal attacks on your part may result in having your access even to editing this talk page revoked (which in fact I considered doing) as well as the seeing the block possibly extended (possibly for an indefinite duration). Please follow the steps outlined in
WP:DR to resolve any outstanding disputes. That's what everyone is expected to do. No one gets a special pass due to... reasons. Thanks.
El_C
01:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Poland, you may be blocked from editing. Merangs ( talk) 15:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to TVP World. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 06:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Gitz (
talk) (
contribs)
09:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 15:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇
20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Writing "piss off" at my own talk page is not a personal attack. Compare IceWhiz and his harassment campaigns against users like me. I have not done anything wrong on the Stalin page and racked up enough support on the Talk page to carry out at least the minimal edit that I applied which just fixes the flow of the first paragraph and deletes the euphemistic formatting of the hyperlink to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Mellk is engaging in an edit war to whitewash Stalin contrary to the wishes of users on the talk page. I am being harassed and just defending myself. Galehautt ( talk) 20:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your conduct, both in personal attacks, and on articles and Talk pages, is unacceptable. Whether you were harassed by IceWhiz or not is irrelevant, but you are not being harassed here. It is you who is doing the harassing. Be careful: if you make another unblock request or continue to make comments on this Talk page that accept zero responsibility for your actions. If you persist, you may have Talk page access revoked. Bbb23 ( talk) 21:03, 24 July 2023 (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.
Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I acknowledge the certain excesses mentioned and apologize for them at the same time standing by my edits and highlighting the support I have on the Talk page for more severe edits than the one I applied. I promise to be a fully exemplary Wikipedian from now on and expect the same of others while requesting a lifting or at least reducing of this severe punishment I have received. Thank you. Galehautt ( talk) 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Galehautt ( talk) 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Blocks are not intended as a punishment, but are a means to prevent and stop disruptive actions. We don't need you to be a "fully exemplary Wikipedian", we just need you to stop the personal attacks. This request doesn't convince me that will happen. 331dot ( talk) 08:43, 25 July 2023 (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.
Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I called the indefinite block a severe punishment, nothing less, because a temporary block would act in my view most justly as a means to prevent and stop my disruptive actions, and let it be known that there is no disagreement between me and the administration and I trust your (the administration's) judgment fully. And yes, *by fully exemplary I mean one who stops the personal attacks.* I apologize for any past personal attacks carried out by me. With the misunderstandings cleared, the rest of my message is as in the last one and I beg for mercy. Galehautt ( talk) 21:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Accept reason:
OK. I'll assume good faith and unblock. Of course we'll be noticing if any of the nastiness resumes. Attack ideas all you want; don't attack other Wikipedia volunteers. ("Piss off" isn't what got you blocked, by the way.) --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇
13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What personal attacks toward what users? Beg your pardon? You told me to attack ideas. I request a return to the previous stage. I'm a man of my word. Galehautt ( talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Calling people names is not acceptable. You've been given several chances now, but if you can't work with other people without resorting to name-calling (e.g. fanboys, tankies) then this isn't the project for you. – bradv 04:09, 27 July 2023 (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.
Galehautt ( talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Which people am I calling names now, I'm confused? I criticized the idea of being a fanboy of a war criminal. And I noted that the article doesn't seem to garner interest of a diverse group of editors. Admin Jpgordon told me attack ideas all you want. I'm a man of my word, there is some confusion here. I received Jpgordon's word and keep mine... I sincerely, politely request unblocking as there does not seem to be grounds for my block. Galehautt ( talk) 07:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am thinking that the only way out of this is for a topic ban from making edits related to Stalin; I hope a broader one is not needed. 331dot ( talk) 08:11, 27 July 2023 (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.
Please place new posts at the bottom for proper discussion flow. The Reply function is not designed for making unblock requests(certain formatting issues are introduced like duplicating your signature), it would help if you opened the edit window directly. 331dot ( talk) 08:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have still not received a reasonable explanation for my indefinite block. I did not personally attack anyone in particular. I followed Jpgordon's recommendation of attacking ideas to a T. I'm a fully exemplary Wikipedian now and request unblocking, no particular person can feel attacked. Galehautt ( talk) 19:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There's no chance unblock requests like this will succeed. Yamla ( talk) 20:43, 27 July 2023 (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.
Galehautt ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry. There must be some kind of inconsequence here. Either on my part or on part of the administration, some kind of goalpost-moving. I was blocked after I did personally call out the user Mellk. I was unblocked after a while for reasons visible above. Jpgordon told me to attack ideas, not people. I was unblocked and did not call out any single person since and have engaged in meritocratic arguments and nothing else. Unless a new explicit guideline is highlighted that I will have to stick to from now on, assuming everyone else does too, isn't my word that I shall keep to the guideline provided by Jpgordon enough? I request to be unblocked based on Jpgordon's guideline and my keeping with it, otherwise I request to be provided with a new guideline I will have to stick to to be unblocked and stay that way. Apologies for any misunderstanding that may have arised. Galehautt ( talk) 21:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is a feeble attempt at sophistic wikilawyering. Bbb23 ( talk) 01:10, 28 July 2023 (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.
I'm a fully exemplary Wikipedian now and request unblocking, no particular person can feel attackedis trolling. TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))