User talk:Dalremnei
May 2024
[edit]
Hello, I'm Acroterion. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at September 11 attacks, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
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. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you are expected to discuss this on the talkpage, please do so. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
First off read wp:npa, then read wp:or then read wp:rs then read. Copntes is based upon what RS say, not on editors feelings. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
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. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
ANI
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why did you do this? I really don't see what's wrong with bringing up ways in which bigotry is justified online by pretending it's "logical" to support some bigoted position and it's only "feelings" or "opinions" that would cause someone to disagree. I bring up the evidence game because it is something that I know would happen on Wikipedia if there was an actual incident of bigotry. I'd just be asked to prove it over and over, with no actual way to convince anyone of the existence of subtle bigtory.
- Has anyone told you how sensitive you are? Dalremnei (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
May 2024
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Dalremnei (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do believe I was making constructive edits to Wikipedia (by removing bias and maintaining its NPOV), and I don't think that my messages were specifically accusing a user of bigotry, I was only explaining rhetorical tactics bigots tend to use. Dalremnei (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The reason for the block is correct, as is the reason for talk page access removal. You aren't willing to collaborate and abide by policies; this has nothing to do with any "clique". 331dot (talk) 09:42, 30 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.
- No, you absolutely do not get to change the block template like that, and you will lose talkpage access if you keep that up. Since I was involved in the original edits, I will not take administrative action, but an uninvolved admin will. Acroterion (talk)