User talk:Lord NnNn
 | Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history. |
May 2017
[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. - Mlpearc (open channel) 13:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Cream (band) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 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. Scr★pIronIV 14:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Lots of warnings and a month-long block coming from a pretty scant editing history. Perhaps instead of ignoring concerns (which won't end well for you), reply here? --NeilN talk to me 14:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
June 2017
[edit] You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by introducing incorrect information. You've been told before about changing List of best-selling albums by year in the United States, based on a source that you can't read properly. Details are in the edit-summary of the revert I made. If you change it again, you will be blocked, probably indefinitely. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia, and if you are clearly not competent, we are better off not having you editing. Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Request for unblocking
[edit]
Lord NnNn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I seem to be blocked for no apparent reason as the reason given for my blocking is "abusing multiple accounts", I don't have more than one account (this one) and any reasonably minded person would see that I have not misused it in any way. Mlpearc (talk · contribs), however (who I am assuming is in some way responsible for my blocking) is a reckless editor and he should in fact be the one who should be blocked if you would look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eddie_Van_Halen and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Van_Halen&action=history, you can see that he is the one who has been doing reckless editing and has even deleted suggestions by other users on the talk page just because they do not agree with him. It is wrong and disgraceful that whoever blocked me would make the assumption that just because another user agrees with my suggestion that he is my "fake account."Lord NnNn (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Making accusations against other editors is not an acceptable way to get yourself unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2017 (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.
- Sorry, you're blocked for sock puppetry I'm hardly the cause of that. I do suggest you address the socking in your unblock request, if you really are a good faith editor who wants to be unblocked. Please see WP:NICETRY. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Ponyo indicated here that the one week block length could be extended if any admin believed it should be longer. Given the above unblock request, I've extended it to indefinite. --NeilN talk to me 14:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- I concur. That unblock request was inappropriate in just about every regard. --Yamla (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- +1 Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
June 2017
[edit]
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.