Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie ( talk) 13:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
you and a few others are trying to hide the impact private serversThere is no conspiracy theory here.
You are also at risk of losing your editing privileges based off your hasteful and disruptive revisions.- Don't make empty threats, that is simply not going to happen. MrOllie ( talk) 13:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Enough. user:MrOllie hasn't given you a formal NPA warning, so I will. Discuss the article content issues at Talk:Ragnarok Online (and Talk:Gravity (Korean company) if required), and stop making accusations about other editors. Meters ( talk) 21:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
User:4ReeZy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. What part of Comment on content, not on contributors
did you not understand?
Meters (
talk) 22:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gravity (Korean company). You have been asked more than once to discuss your edits on the articles talk pages. Per WP:BRD itis up to you to get discuss and get consensus on the talk pages for contested edits rather than restoring them. Meters ( talk) 22:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. 4ReeZy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I got a warning and acknowledged so and disengaged. The last thing I said was at: 23:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Already further discussed and acknowledge warnings with user:Meters on my talk page. As the original dispute came from user:MrOllie talk page.
Suddenly, I'm getting issued a ban at: 04:02, 22 March 2024 user:Cullen328 claims it's for: "engaging in personal attacks on other editors, spreading conspiracy theories, and using unreliable sources." Despite me engaging in 0 activity between my last reply and issued block.
I simply find these is claims exaggerated & unjustifiable as I already accepted it and moved on.
Decline reason:
Based on Special:Diff/1214890177 and Special:Diff/1214891893, where you express contempt for using reliable sources, you probably should stay blocked. As an encyclopedia, the whole point of Wikipedia is to neutrally report what independent reliable sources say. If you don't like being forced to use reliable sources, Wikipedia isn't the right website for you. You're also personalizing disputes and making silly accusations against people. I mean, really, accusing someone of wanting to use reliable sources, as if that's a bad thing? Everyone gets a bit worked up and irritable when their edit is reverted. That's natural. However, once Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines are explained to you, you're expected to read them and start following them. You can't just say, "Nope, I don't like reliable sources." NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (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.
Your definition of contempt is a skewed misunderstood one. "the whole point of Wikipedia is to neutrally report what independent reliable sources say" in which I did, and anything that may have been considered biased could've been tweaked rather than full on reverted. Ya'll even kept uncited information I wrote in on other segments, but when it comes to the private server bits with sources, it was removed. I wrote down events and briefly described them as neutral as can be. Also, the moderators and admins attending to me keep glossing over the official source provided from the companies themselves. This showcases the upmost selective information bias at it's finest. I never displayed any sort of problem against using a reliable source. I only ever stated that "an unreliable source isn't necessarily an untrustworthy one", which I don't think is a reach to say; as many articles use "unreliable sources" such as Spider-man (2002). You too are also exaggerating the matter. I didn't make any accusations of "wanting to use a reliable source". That doesn't even make sense. I didn't just say "Nope, I don't like reliable sources.", nor anything similar. The hell? Is this the adminship of Wikipedia? This is actually peak accusation. Responses like this I believe justifies my speculations and "accusations". Feels almost coordinated.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie ( talk) 13:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
you and a few others are trying to hide the impact private serversThere is no conspiracy theory here.
You are also at risk of losing your editing privileges based off your hasteful and disruptive revisions.- Don't make empty threats, that is simply not going to happen. MrOllie ( talk) 13:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Enough. user:MrOllie hasn't given you a formal NPA warning, so I will. Discuss the article content issues at Talk:Ragnarok Online (and Talk:Gravity (Korean company) if required), and stop making accusations about other editors. Meters ( talk) 21:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
User:4ReeZy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. What part of Comment on content, not on contributors
did you not understand?
Meters (
talk) 22:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gravity (Korean company). You have been asked more than once to discuss your edits on the articles talk pages. Per WP:BRD itis up to you to get discuss and get consensus on the talk pages for contested edits rather than restoring them. Meters ( talk) 22:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. 4ReeZy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I got a warning and acknowledged so and disengaged. The last thing I said was at: 23:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Already further discussed and acknowledge warnings with user:Meters on my talk page. As the original dispute came from user:MrOllie talk page.
Suddenly, I'm getting issued a ban at: 04:02, 22 March 2024 user:Cullen328 claims it's for: "engaging in personal attacks on other editors, spreading conspiracy theories, and using unreliable sources." Despite me engaging in 0 activity between my last reply and issued block.
I simply find these is claims exaggerated & unjustifiable as I already accepted it and moved on.
Decline reason:
Based on Special:Diff/1214890177 and Special:Diff/1214891893, where you express contempt for using reliable sources, you probably should stay blocked. As an encyclopedia, the whole point of Wikipedia is to neutrally report what independent reliable sources say. If you don't like being forced to use reliable sources, Wikipedia isn't the right website for you. You're also personalizing disputes and making silly accusations against people. I mean, really, accusing someone of wanting to use reliable sources, as if that's a bad thing? Everyone gets a bit worked up and irritable when their edit is reverted. That's natural. However, once Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines are explained to you, you're expected to read them and start following them. You can't just say, "Nope, I don't like reliable sources." NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (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.
Your definition of contempt is a skewed misunderstood one. "the whole point of Wikipedia is to neutrally report what independent reliable sources say" in which I did, and anything that may have been considered biased could've been tweaked rather than full on reverted. Ya'll even kept uncited information I wrote in on other segments, but when it comes to the private server bits with sources, it was removed. I wrote down events and briefly described them as neutral as can be. Also, the moderators and admins attending to me keep glossing over the official source provided from the companies themselves. This showcases the upmost selective information bias at it's finest. I never displayed any sort of problem against using a reliable source. I only ever stated that "an unreliable source isn't necessarily an untrustworthy one", which I don't think is a reach to say; as many articles use "unreliable sources" such as Spider-man (2002). You too are also exaggerating the matter. I didn't make any accusations of "wanting to use a reliable source". That doesn't even make sense. I didn't just say "Nope, I don't like reliable sources.", nor anything similar. The hell? Is this the adminship of Wikipedia? This is actually peak accusation. Responses like this I believe justifies my speculations and "accusations". Feels almost coordinated.