Jump to content

User talk:RLMStern

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, RLMStern! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

December 2021

[edit]

Information icon

Welcome new editor. You appear to have had placed numerous unsourced WP:NOR and WP:Fancruft contents in the article [[Attitude Era ]] all of which have been rectified. Please read those guidelines and in future please remember to use WP:PW/RS to support your edits as personal views are not accepted in WIkipedia. Also if majority editors disagree with your edits, seek Wp:RfC to gain consensus. Wishing you all the best. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. This time its the second warning, stop your vandalism of the article or you will be reported and may be blocked, also please note the WP:EW guidline. You do not even know how to sign comments, please learn basic Wikipedia guidlines and formqats first. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Third warning. Please refrain from further WP:Vandal using non WP:PW/RS and sources that fail WP:RS and WP:V guidelines, and a lot of WP:OR contents you added. You also seem to have added numerous UNSOURCED contents on WrestleMania 18 article. Next time you do it the three warn rule will be broken and I can report you. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48h for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
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 ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at Attitude Era.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 13 December 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).

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

Request reason:

Reverted vandalism and continued to contribute as always to Attitude Era, user Czello then further vandalised article removing months of edits, sources, and contributions, also removed self reverting corrections. Contributed greatly to article, whenever user asked for source I gave it, which were verified sources, user started acting belligerent when I was able to follow up and add sources, his own edits said to add sources and I did just that. user then reverted article far beyond the supposed edit war out of personal anger. RLMStern (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be trying to justify your edit warring, not telling us why it was wrong. Since you don't think you did anything wrong, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 14 December 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Apologies, reason is because I wasn't warned nor was I aware that I was in an edit war, the edit stood, as did all my contributions. every time person edited my edit and asked for a source, I provided the source they asked. That to me didn't indicate any edit war, that was simply me providing source each and every time they undid my edits and asked for source, I thought you just fix your edit with requested source, I wasn't aware I was in some edit war, if I was then now I know what constitutes that. RLMStern (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You falsely claim you weren't warned about edit warring. This is manifestly false. You were warned here and blocked previously for 48 hours for edit warring. Frankly, it's simply not plausible that you did not know. Yamla (talk) 10:26, 15 December 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I knew about previous edit war, but didn't think the 2nd incident was an edit war but a Request for sources since the one who undid it was an admin and left reason as not having source, so I thought they wanted sources so that my edits would be valid, hence why I responded with sources, the user undid my edit and said there was no proper ref, so I thought that's where you're supposed to fix your edit and add the source, I didn't think I was in an edit war but thought an admin was doing a review and for me to revise it, basically thought he was undoing edits UNTIL I provided sources unlike the first which I thought was edit war due to personal views of opposing non-admin poster. Hence why I didn't think this was an edit war. I only provide facts, zero personal views no matter how much anyone dislikes it, Wikipedia objective is Objectivity. RLMStern (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. As a minor note, run on sentences are hard to understand. You might have better success if your unblock requests are easier to read. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2022 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RLMStern&oldid=1068902063"