User talk:ASAPR2016

April 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Meital Dohan; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. gnu 57 23:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ASAPR2016 (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 from Meital Dohan's page when in fact I do PR for the actress. I've been only trying to give Wikipedia the accurate information, with the correct cited sources and have been blocked. The Israeli interview in which some users are referring to was transcribed wrong.

Decline reason:

That's even worse! So not only have you been violating WP:SOCK, you've also been violating WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO? In that case, the block is definitely appropriate. Yamla (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ASAPR2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was trying to update the information as I just recently did a PR (public radio) interview with Meital. She really is 39. I thought Wikipedia was built on proper fact checking. If you guys want it to say 1979 and be incorrect I'm not going to fight over a Wikipedia page. Have at it!

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

While editors have great leeway regarding the removal of messages from their talk pages, declined unblock requests are among the few exceptions. Please don't remove that again until the block is resolved. Huon (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ASAPR2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for the confusion and did not mean to engage in an editing war with anyone on this page. I will not disrupt this page again. The block is no longer necessary.

Decline reason:

You have not addressed your violations of policies as mentioned above; and since violating WP:SOCK is one of them, you must request unblock from your original account. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ASAPR2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My account was accused of sock puppetry and I was asked to request the unblock from my original account. This is my original account. Please advise.

Decline reason:

No it isn't. Your original account was User:Lm945. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Yunshui Lm945 isn't my account. I am not affiliated with that account at all. This is my account. Lm945 doesn't even have the same IP address.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ASAPR2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been accused of sockpuppetry linked to an account under Lm945 which does not exist. My account is not associated with Lm945 at all.

Decline reason:

Putting aside the issue of sockpuppetry, you have not addressed your misuse of Wikipedia for public relations purposes and undeclared commercial editing, which are evidently your only reasons for editing Wikipedia. As this is your fifth unsuccessful unblock request, I am withdrawing your ability to make further appeals. MER-C 09:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

ASAPR2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #25778 was submitted on Jul 01, 2019 17:01:18. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]