User talk:WapistWobber

nah.

== December 2021 == Hi WapistWobber! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Rudolf Hess‎ that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. I've also removed your see also link. There's no apparent connection between Rudolf Hess‎ and Spandau Ballet. Yes he was imprisoned in Spandau Prison, but the group was not named for the prison. There's no more reason to link Spandau Ballet than there is to link, say, Spandau Citadel or Spandau arsenal Meters (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC) The group was named for the prison at a time when for a long period already the respected former Deputy Fuhrer was it's only inmate. The silliness and overkill of his being guarded by a complement of dozens of armed soldiers involving all four of the post-WW2 occupying powers in Germany for involvement on the side of The Fatherland entirely before Operation Barbarossa: that's the "Spandau ballet". WapistWobber (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is being used only for vandalism. Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC) 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). WapistWobber (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: original unblock reason Decline reason: I can see that, but that's not a joke many people are likely to think makes a cute username. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2021 (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. Far from any type of threat it's a comedy wefewence. People are allowed that here 01:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC 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). WapistWobber (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Oh really? Did you conduct a poll or maybe maybe just your ass talking. If this JOKE was insulting to any non-snowflake individual then it would have been bleeped out or cut out of any of the many many exhibitions of the source film. Spoiler: it hasn't. Stop being ridiculous in this oppression which is about fictionally-derived mockery in a film that was already fictional itself. WapistWobber (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Decline reason: Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 05:38, 9 December 2021 (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.

December 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)