Hello, Thewtfchronicles. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Frmatt ( talk) 04:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thewtfchronicles ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What the hell are you talking about? There wasn't any edit warring going on there.
Decline reason:
Yes, it was edit warring. You were repeatedly reverting the same content back into the article. Please work such things out through discussion instead of back and forth reverting in the future. Chillum 15:34, 13 November 2009 (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.
Thewtfchronicles ( talk) 10:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You continued your problematic reverting/edit-warring despite just coming off a block for the same, and being warned not to repeat that behaviour in
this thread at
WP:ANI. Diffs:
[1],
[2],
[3].
EyeSerene
talk 10:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Reverting is not "problematic" when its highly justifiable. The block I came off of was not even for reverting or edit warring. TWO reverts does not make it edit warring, especially when there had been a talk page discussion then reverting was halted by both of us. Neither of us deserve a block. Thewtfchronicles ( talk) 10:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thewtfchronicles ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. TWO reverts happened and there was talk page action, then someone else added the unneeded content back in.
Decline reason:
You were blocked for edit warring, not a 3RR violation. Please address the reason for the block if you wish to request another unblock. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 22:18, 13 November 2009 (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.
Two reverts that then ended in talk page discussion, though it was minimal is not an edit war.
Thewtfchronicles (
talk) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thewtfchronicles ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked for reverting the re-addition of unneeded content from an article (twice). Two reverts then a talk page discussion that ended up in neither editors "disrupting" further does not make it an edit war. I find the blocking admin to be abusing their powers by throwing out blocks in the most minor of situations. Also, look at This edit. Isn't that a little iffy that that editor tried to expand upon the "edit war" you speak of? In such a case, he would too be apart of this "edit war" and therefore should have been blocked as well. See? Just doesn't work. My block should be revoked because it has not been justifiably given. No edit warring occurred on iCarly.
Decline reason:
As has been pointed out WP:3RR is not a license to revert up to three times if you're in a content dispute. And despite your claim of you only reverting twice, as linked above in addition to the page history, you reverted three times the same section before trying to discuss it on the talk page. I would suggest reading the guide on appealing blocks. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Instead you mainly focused on what other people have done. Q T C 07:42, 14 November 2009 (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.
Thewtfchronicles ( talk) 07:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
When what other users have done is highly relevant, why exclude such details? TWO reverts happened - one before the talk page, and one afterwards. Thewtfchronicles ( talk) 07:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The first one there isn't a revert. Pay attention to what you're doing or don't be involved at all.
Thewtfchronicles (
talk) 08:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It was a separate edit that removed a pointless section. Two reverts then occurred, one of which was after the talk page discussion. This is a completely unjust and false block. There is no reason whatsoever why I should be blocked currently. Thewtfchronicles ( talk) 08:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I do not get why I was blocked over reverting an edit TWO times that was placing unneeded content back in. What this "something else" is is beyond me. Care to inform me? Thewtfchronicles ( talk) 08:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
What you don't seem to fucking comprehend is that IT WAS NOT AN EDIT WAR.
Thewtfchronicles (
talk) 05:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
And now I think I will report you for admin power abuse.
Thewtfchronicles (
talk) 05:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Per the CheckUser result at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CNGLITCHINFO, I have extended your block to indefinite, as it has been confirmed that the same person behind CNGLITCHINFO has used this account in a way to circumvent the community's guidelines and policies. Regards, MuZemike 17:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thewtfchronicles ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What the fucking hell are you talking about? First off, I was wrongly accused of vandalism then given no chance to defend myself, making me wonder what the point of the section for that is. This is exactly what I mean by abusive admin powers - It's clear it's a "ooh, i like this editor, but oh no, this guy, i don't like him, i'll just give him blocks for crap he didn't do, sure, he's a valuable contributor, but I just don't like the guy, fuck him" This is EXACTLY why so many people hate Wikipedia. Because they think of it as a dictatorship. Which it appears it is.
Decline reason:
( edit conflict) I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block. Please explain how Brandon's checkuser findings are wrong. NW ( Talk) 03:35, 17 November 2009 (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.
Funny, I was thinking, when I saw this checkuser result, of how embarrassed I was. Because I had already declined one of your unblock requests as User:Tdinoahfan, and the writing style is so similar that I feel like I should have recognized that you were the same person and blocked you weeks ago. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of programs broadcast by Disney XD is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Disney XD until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Thewtfchronicles. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Frmatt ( talk) 04:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thewtfchronicles ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What the hell are you talking about? There wasn't any edit warring going on there.
Decline reason:
Yes, it was edit warring. You were repeatedly reverting the same content back into the article. Please work such things out through discussion instead of back and forth reverting in the future. Chillum 15:34, 13 November 2009 (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.
Thewtfchronicles ( talk) 10:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You continued your problematic reverting/edit-warring despite just coming off a block for the same, and being warned not to repeat that behaviour in
this thread at
WP:ANI. Diffs:
[1],
[2],
[3].
EyeSerene
talk 10:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Reverting is not "problematic" when its highly justifiable. The block I came off of was not even for reverting or edit warring. TWO reverts does not make it edit warring, especially when there had been a talk page discussion then reverting was halted by both of us. Neither of us deserve a block. Thewtfchronicles ( talk) 10:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thewtfchronicles ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. TWO reverts happened and there was talk page action, then someone else added the unneeded content back in.
Decline reason:
You were blocked for edit warring, not a 3RR violation. Please address the reason for the block if you wish to request another unblock. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 22:18, 13 November 2009 (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.
Two reverts that then ended in talk page discussion, though it was minimal is not an edit war.
Thewtfchronicles (
talk) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thewtfchronicles ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked for reverting the re-addition of unneeded content from an article (twice). Two reverts then a talk page discussion that ended up in neither editors "disrupting" further does not make it an edit war. I find the blocking admin to be abusing their powers by throwing out blocks in the most minor of situations. Also, look at This edit. Isn't that a little iffy that that editor tried to expand upon the "edit war" you speak of? In such a case, he would too be apart of this "edit war" and therefore should have been blocked as well. See? Just doesn't work. My block should be revoked because it has not been justifiably given. No edit warring occurred on iCarly.
Decline reason:
As has been pointed out WP:3RR is not a license to revert up to three times if you're in a content dispute. And despite your claim of you only reverting twice, as linked above in addition to the page history, you reverted three times the same section before trying to discuss it on the talk page. I would suggest reading the guide on appealing blocks. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Instead you mainly focused on what other people have done. Q T C 07:42, 14 November 2009 (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.
Thewtfchronicles ( talk) 07:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
When what other users have done is highly relevant, why exclude such details? TWO reverts happened - one before the talk page, and one afterwards. Thewtfchronicles ( talk) 07:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The first one there isn't a revert. Pay attention to what you're doing or don't be involved at all.
Thewtfchronicles (
talk) 08:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It was a separate edit that removed a pointless section. Two reverts then occurred, one of which was after the talk page discussion. This is a completely unjust and false block. There is no reason whatsoever why I should be blocked currently. Thewtfchronicles ( talk) 08:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I do not get why I was blocked over reverting an edit TWO times that was placing unneeded content back in. What this "something else" is is beyond me. Care to inform me? Thewtfchronicles ( talk) 08:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
What you don't seem to fucking comprehend is that IT WAS NOT AN EDIT WAR.
Thewtfchronicles (
talk) 05:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
And now I think I will report you for admin power abuse.
Thewtfchronicles (
talk) 05:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Per the CheckUser result at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CNGLITCHINFO, I have extended your block to indefinite, as it has been confirmed that the same person behind CNGLITCHINFO has used this account in a way to circumvent the community's guidelines and policies. Regards, MuZemike 17:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thewtfchronicles ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What the fucking hell are you talking about? First off, I was wrongly accused of vandalism then given no chance to defend myself, making me wonder what the point of the section for that is. This is exactly what I mean by abusive admin powers - It's clear it's a "ooh, i like this editor, but oh no, this guy, i don't like him, i'll just give him blocks for crap he didn't do, sure, he's a valuable contributor, but I just don't like the guy, fuck him" This is EXACTLY why so many people hate Wikipedia. Because they think of it as a dictatorship. Which it appears it is.
Decline reason:
( edit conflict) I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block. Please explain how Brandon's checkuser findings are wrong. NW ( Talk) 03:35, 17 November 2009 (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.
Funny, I was thinking, when I saw this checkuser result, of how embarrassed I was. Because I had already declined one of your unblock requests as User:Tdinoahfan, and the writing style is so similar that I feel like I should have recognized that you were the same person and blocked you weeks ago. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of programs broadcast by Disney XD is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Disney XD until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)