User talk:Brickcity55

Brickcity55, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Brickcity55! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Your recent editing history at Game of Thrones (TV series)‎‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sandstein 20:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hrs for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Game_of_Thrones_(TV_series). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi censure ship

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).

Brickcity55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was given a warning and then immediately banned even though I didn't post any thing else on the article. I was also accused of not engaging on the talk page even though I wrote a lengthy paragraph on my position. The person that banned me just disagrees with my edit. His attitude is petty. --Brickcity55 (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Comparing the blocking admin to a nazi, crying censorship, and pointing fingers does not provide the required assurance that an unblock would not result in continued disruption. Please read the guide to appealing blocks and try again. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:48, 2 November 2012 (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.

Disruptions and harassment

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).

Brickcity55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was accused of disruptions. What did I do to disrupt anything? Is it a disruption to add to a talk page now. These rules are very nazilike . To ban someone without proper warning is petty and is harrassment at the minimum level. Read this carefully, I was accused if edit warring and before I could appeal the warning or due anything else for that matter, I was outright banned. What sense does that? What's the purpose of a warning if you're going to go straight to the punishment anyway. So yeah I call it it nazilike because it reminds me of the stories my grandmother used to share. Censure ship is a dangerous thing and it is a shame to see that it is alive a well on wp. I reverted an edit and gave a lengthy explanation as to why and was banned. The people who have banned me have given no reason. Yes, yes, yes it is nazilike. --Brickcity55 (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No social group, be it an online community or an entire nation, can function without rules. That does not make the people charged with enforcing those rules nazis. Nobody has prejudged you based on what family you were born into or why area you are from. The problem is that you engaged in edit warring, which is against the rules. Your conduct, not the accident of your birth, is the problem here. Given that this request contains yet anger accusation of nazism it is clear you are not yet ready to accept that, so I am revoking your ability to edit this page for the duration of the block. Please do not edit war or make ridiculous accusations after your block expires, all that it will lead to is you being blocked again. Please understand that edit warring is not tolerated from anyone, from the very newest user to the most experienced administrator, anyone who does it gets blocked. It is the only tool we have to prevent Wikipedia becoming a free-for-all where people change articles to say whatever they personally want. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2012 (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.

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brickcity55. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truth

As I've written , is still true to this day. --Brickcity55 (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information

I will not be donating any money to Wikipedia because I question whether this site is actually unbiased.--Brickcity55 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

After reviewing this page

All that I have written is still true to this day. My, what a shame and what a waste of a website.

The Above Is Still True

Nothing has changed about wikipedia's tyrant policies---nothing. What a waste of a website.