User talk:Threesom666

January 2021

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username, Threesom666, does not meet our username policy. Your username is the principal reason for the block. You are welcome to continue editing after you have selected a new username that meets the username policy guidelines, which are summarized below.

Per the username policy, a username should represent an individual and should not: represent a group or organization; be promotional; be misleading (such as indicating possession of special user rights or being a ”Bot" account (unless approved for such purposes)); be offensive or otherwise disruptive. However, a username that contains the name of a organization and also identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or “FoobarFan87" is allowed, though, among others, the guidance on conflict of interest and the policy of paid-contribution disclosure are relevant.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our username policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you wish for your existing contributions to carry over under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My screen name is my name and represents me. I dont care of contributing anymore if it’s going to block because of my name. "Without strife, your victory has no meaning. Without strife, you do not advance. Without strife, there is only stagnation.""Without strife, your victory has no meaning. Without strife, you do not advance. Without strife, there is only stagnation." (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You are free to request unblock as instructed above to attempt to convince another administrator that your name does not violate the username policy or otherwise should be permitted. I responded to a report at WP:UAA. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did follow the instructions and I did request already to keep name.

I’ve had it for years and it’s my identity. I hate all these on going new guidelines. "Without strife, your victory has no meaning. Without strife, you do not advance. Without strife, there is only stagnation.""Without strife, your victory has no meaning. Without strife, you do not advance. Without strife, there is only stagnation." (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You have not made a formal unblock request; no one will see your statements here unless you format it as an unblock request. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 12 January 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).

Threesom666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My screen name is my name and represents me. I dont care of contributing anymore if it’s going to block because of my name.

Decline reason:

As you wish. Yamla (talk) 22:14, 12 January 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.

Unblocked

You have been unblocked, and my apologies for being put through this. I hope that you can continue to edit; we do welcome your contributions and hope that a little more good faith can be extended your way in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Threesom666. The result of this discussion was to allow your username. The discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can find a link to the discussion in the archive. You do not need to change your username and no action from you is required. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I would encourage you to change your signature. It's... rather long. Generally, a signature should be relatively short and give an indication of who is leaving the message. Primefac (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been unblocked, you are permitted to remove those block notices should you wish to do so. Welcome back and please continue to contribute to Wikpedia. Mjroots (talk)

Cut out the trolling or you'll be blocked again

Here, you say "unfortunately based on this experience, I probably edit less now if at all". You'll probably edit less? How is that possible, if you edit at all? You have made 29 edits in 13 years, 10 of them recent complaints about your horrible experience and attacks on User:331dot (and now also on User:El C, I see). Time to stop milking it unless you want to be blocked again. Compare also comments from Praxidicae and SQL on User talk:331dot. Bishonen | tålk 21:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

You've been given repeated warnings about the trolling. I've blocked you for 31 hours. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:24, 26 January 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).

Threesom666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

why was I blocked in the very beginning without a right to defense is the same exact reason I am being blocked as a gag rule. Not being able to defend my views and clear views. Being threatened and called insults like a troll while being followed and harassed. Moderators act lawlessly here without any accountability being able to impose such trivial bans on the common. This whole experience has disappointed me in what wikipedia is and how it drives away hard working editors and people of good intentions putting away many good articles and important information all on the vein of a team of egos, weak egos. This is dissatisfying and regrettable.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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. Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 26 January 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.

I'm not seeing where this addresses the reason for the block - but if an uninvolved admin decides that it does, please feel free to unblock without asking me. Please see the now-deleted revisions to El_C's talkpage. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think I've been EXTREMELY generous in only blocking for 31 hours. Honestly, while I wouldn't have reacted that way - I can understand being upset about the block, and the discussion of your chosen username. You were given multiple warnings to cut it out, and still chose to persist. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

also see this admins actions against all of my posts and threats. and also see the users previous posts and messages of who he is referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threesom666 (talk • contribs)

Your Extremely generous block has zero weigh on me. You immediately contradict your view in understanding. Like you many mods lack empathy and abuse power absolutely. You don't tell me what to do, you can extend it if you'd like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threesom666 (talk • contribs)

Are you referring to yourself with the "hard working editors" and "many good articles and important information" in your unblock request, Threesom666? Interesting. As I said above, 29 edits in 13 years, 10 of them recent complaints about your horrible experience. (Your other 19 edits weren't so hot either.) You were lucky SQL blocked before I did; I was just going to place an indefinite block for not being here to help build an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 22:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not interested

Threesom666, I wasn't involved in imposing your block, so I'd appreciate it if you were to refrain from posting on my talk page for the foreseeable future. I have no interest with engaging you in further discourse, of any kind (whatsoever). Please respect that. El_C 21:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Colin Farrell

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Colin Farrell, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]