![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
So please stop insisting it is. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Please note the warning I left you at WP:AN3.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
11:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)L337m4n ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not attempt to start an edit war. Okay, maybe I broke the three-revert rule, but it was in good faith. Plus, I attempted to be as reasonable as possible per WP:BOLD, as I left a message on the talk page. I don't understand why I am also being blocked if I'm the reasonable one; meanwhile, Bobby690 was so unreasonable and slightly hostile. I understand the edit warring policy, and maybe I should've left another message on the talk page, but my first thought was to revert the edit one more time. I mean, at least Bobby got blocked, too. KullyKeemaKa ( talk) 12:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It doesn't matter in the slightest who started it. You clearly violated both WP:3RR and WP:EW. Yamla ( talk) 13:29, 21 May 2021 (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.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
MonsterCr1TiKaL. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 25#MonsterCr1TiKaL until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Onel5969
TT me
13:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I blocked you for a week because I mistakenly thought you had restored your version of Cr1TiKaL since your 48-hour block expired. I have unblocked you with a notation of the error in the block log. Very sorry. That said, the other user did restore their version of the article, and I have blocked them for a week. Do not restore your version, or you will be blocked. If you think the current version is wrong, then you need to get a consensus for that view on the article Talk page.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
for behaving a bit weirdly at Talk:Dream SMP server, I was genuinely confused at what you were trying to do as I'm not too experienced with moves and might have come across as a bit aggressive. Happy editing , 15 ( talk) 00:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Terreberry, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Terreberry (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
So please stop insisting it is. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Please note the warning I left you at WP:AN3.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
11:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)L337m4n ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not attempt to start an edit war. Okay, maybe I broke the three-revert rule, but it was in good faith. Plus, I attempted to be as reasonable as possible per WP:BOLD, as I left a message on the talk page. I don't understand why I am also being blocked if I'm the reasonable one; meanwhile, Bobby690 was so unreasonable and slightly hostile. I understand the edit warring policy, and maybe I should've left another message on the talk page, but my first thought was to revert the edit one more time. I mean, at least Bobby got blocked, too. KullyKeemaKa ( talk) 12:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It doesn't matter in the slightest who started it. You clearly violated both WP:3RR and WP:EW. Yamla ( talk) 13:29, 21 May 2021 (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.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
MonsterCr1TiKaL. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 25#MonsterCr1TiKaL until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Onel5969
TT me
13:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I blocked you for a week because I mistakenly thought you had restored your version of Cr1TiKaL since your 48-hour block expired. I have unblocked you with a notation of the error in the block log. Very sorry. That said, the other user did restore their version of the article, and I have blocked them for a week. Do not restore your version, or you will be blocked. If you think the current version is wrong, then you need to get a consensus for that view on the article Talk page.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
for behaving a bit weirdly at Talk:Dream SMP server, I was genuinely confused at what you were trying to do as I'm not too experienced with moves and might have come across as a bit aggressive. Happy editing , 15 ( talk) 00:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Terreberry, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Terreberry (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)