Mongobongohongo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Bit confused by this one, I returned after a (admittedly deserved) block and proceeded to clean up the kit manufacturers on the article Hull City A.F.C. as well as pose a question on the talk page. I fail to see how this makes me a "vandalism only" account? No message was left on my talk page so as you can imagine I'm in the dark a bit here. Any help/guidance would be appreciated. Thanks Mongobongohongo ( talk) 16:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If for nothing else, the fact that it appears you have no re-added the word "inexplicably" 5 times to the same article, contrary to WP:CONSENSUS is enough to convince me that the core concept of Wikipedia is being ignored. We have a concept of bold, revert, discuss it's not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRRD. As such, the re-addition - besides being against consensus - is original research, and as it appears to be regarding a specific person, could be considered vandalism and/or contrary to the WP:BLP policy ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 17:36, 14 January 2013 (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.
Mongobongohongo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Having read the below comments, I accept I was in the wrong. As only one person (at the time) appeared to disagree with my edit, I figured "Consensus" was not an issue, and indeed, a further comment in the article regarding the appointment of Dowie appears to be in a similar vein to mine regarding the sacking of Brown. As I said, I can see I was in the wrong and I misinterpreted the reverting of my edits as "Trolling" rather than constructive. I would like to be unblocked, because as I say, I feel I can contribute and it would be a shame if I was blocked for this misunderstanding of the rules. I know I shouldn't come up with any "deals" or "plea bargains", but is it not possible for my block to be given a week or so rather than an indefinite block? I apologise if this is unacceptable, and if you feel an indefinite ban is necessary then so be it.
Accept reason:
As you've answered my question and appear to be serious, I've reduced the block to a week from the original date. And if you get stuck or have problems finding consensus, ask others for help before you're dragged into conflicts! Bjelleklang - talk 09:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's my offer based on the unblock request above: I will reduce the block to a week, if you can provide me with an idea of what you plan to do when unblocked.
If you end up in a similar conflict where you ignore consensus or add OR to articles for the coming months it goes without saying that you will be indef blocked again. If you're serious about contributing to Wikipedia, I also suggest that you try to find a mentor who can help you. Bjelleklang - talk 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Mongobongohongo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Bit confused by this one, I returned after a (admittedly deserved) block and proceeded to clean up the kit manufacturers on the article Hull City A.F.C. as well as pose a question on the talk page. I fail to see how this makes me a "vandalism only" account? No message was left on my talk page so as you can imagine I'm in the dark a bit here. Any help/guidance would be appreciated. Thanks Mongobongohongo ( talk) 16:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If for nothing else, the fact that it appears you have no re-added the word "inexplicably" 5 times to the same article, contrary to WP:CONSENSUS is enough to convince me that the core concept of Wikipedia is being ignored. We have a concept of bold, revert, discuss it's not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRRD. As such, the re-addition - besides being against consensus - is original research, and as it appears to be regarding a specific person, could be considered vandalism and/or contrary to the WP:BLP policy ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 17:36, 14 January 2013 (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.
Mongobongohongo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Having read the below comments, I accept I was in the wrong. As only one person (at the time) appeared to disagree with my edit, I figured "Consensus" was not an issue, and indeed, a further comment in the article regarding the appointment of Dowie appears to be in a similar vein to mine regarding the sacking of Brown. As I said, I can see I was in the wrong and I misinterpreted the reverting of my edits as "Trolling" rather than constructive. I would like to be unblocked, because as I say, I feel I can contribute and it would be a shame if I was blocked for this misunderstanding of the rules. I know I shouldn't come up with any "deals" or "plea bargains", but is it not possible for my block to be given a week or so rather than an indefinite block? I apologise if this is unacceptable, and if you feel an indefinite ban is necessary then so be it.
Accept reason:
As you've answered my question and appear to be serious, I've reduced the block to a week from the original date. And if you get stuck or have problems finding consensus, ask others for help before you're dragged into conflicts! Bjelleklang - talk 09:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's my offer based on the unblock request above: I will reduce the block to a week, if you can provide me with an idea of what you plan to do when unblocked.
If you end up in a similar conflict where you ignore consensus or add OR to articles for the coming months it goes without saying that you will be indef blocked again. If you're serious about contributing to Wikipedia, I also suggest that you try to find a mentor who can help you. Bjelleklang - talk 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)