User talk:Illegally
May 2024[edit]
Your recent editing history 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. Khirurg (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- You and your friends have been involved in disruption of several articles (specifically regarding Albania), constantly reverting and blocking information you don't like even though is factual and sourced. You should be careful of getting blocked as well.
- Information on Wikipedia must be free of biases and censoring. There is a reason why Wikipedia is open for everyone to edit, but it seems you've been trying to block everyone from editing. Your attempts won't last long.
- Just by looking at your contribution history we can see who is the one doing edit wars.
- If you disagree with a contribution, you explain your reasons and if I'm wrong (which I doubt), then I would agree to change it. Illegally (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)- Illegally, do not send me any more e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why? I'm not allowed to ask for a comment on your decision to block me?
- I asked that you proper investigate my "accusations" made on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring and not disregard them straight away.
- You also added "WP:LOUTSOCK with Special:contributions/2A02:908:1997:1500:0:0:0:0/64" as a reason for blocking me, which has nothing to do with me. On what basis you came to that conclusion?
Illegally (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked indefinitely without proper consideration
Decline reason:
The block appears to have been made with proper consideration. No comment with regard to CU data that specific IP address range. Yamla (talk) 13:00, 21 May 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.
Illegally (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I realize I might have had an initial bad approach to editing as a new contributer and I took it too personal, I would appreciate if you could at least change my block to a less permanent one, I want to contribute to articles I like in the future, and not be part of edit warring anymore. Thanks.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:48, 19 June 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.
- Can you please explain what specific accounts you're referring to when you use "everyone" in "you've been trying to block everyone from editing" and who "we" are when you state "we can see who is the one doing edit wars" in your post above?-- Ponyobons mots 19:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Ponyo,
- It seemed to me that the user had been reverting edits by made by other people, hence "everyone", no specific accounts to mention, it was just a general look on the user's history. But I guess I might have exaggerated and misjudged that.
- "We" is just a way of expression.
- Thanks for your consideration. Illegally (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)