User talk:Axelvervoordt

February 2021

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Acroterion (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations are patently false. If you pursue this any further you'll be blocked for violating the biographies of living persons policy. Acroterion (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have not pursued this any further, I have simply posted evidence (Redacted). And honestly I don't even want it to be posted on that site, it was just for the moderator named Acroterion, I'm not pursuing this any further, that's just for his knowledge, if he wants more evidence I can show him. Axelvervoordt (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not appear to be an unblock request. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:53, 7 February 2021 (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.

The BLP policy applies to every part of Wikipedia, including talkpages. You may not make accusations of criminal activity on Wikipedia that are unsupported by clear-cut legal proceedings and convictions. I will remove talkpage access, since this appears to be your only purpose on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]