User talk:Xzf

Welcome

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} 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 username and the date. Try to fill in the edit summary field with each edit. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

January 2019

Hello, I noticed that you recently removed content from Underworld (film series)‎ without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with a clear and accurate edit summary. If you think this a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on the article's talk page. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Van Helsing (film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TheImaCow. I noticed that in this edit to Melissa Rauch, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TheImaCow (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Batman and Harley Quinn, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not edit any article regarding Kate Beckinsale without providing a reliable source. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Van Helsing (film) 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DonIago (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Melissa Rauch. This is the third time you have been reverted on this same change. After the first revert you should have discussed the edit before restoring. Let me be clear: If you make the same (or a similar) change again without establishing a consensus to do so, you will be blocked from editing. SummerPhD^v2.0 00:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Xzf (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At least some of your edits were clear vandalism. This wasn't an edit-war, this was you vandalising articles and other people cleaning up after your vandalism. You appear to have a history of this, so clearly the block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2020 (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.

123
123
123

I ask you officially release the lock. 1) Since I did not break any rules. 2) I also want to ask you and some Administers to stop the whole editing war as, well as stop the war for editing. 3) I also want to complain about the fact that some Administrators make incorrect changes to Wikipedia, and when I fix it they block me!!! What you do it wrong and not permissilbe!!! This is a revision war!!! Therefore, I ask you to stop doing this!!! 4) Make sure that some Administrators are familiar whit politics an editing on Wikipedia. 5) Some Administers have a devastating effect on Wikipedia. 6) The fact that I invest it from official sources. I check with Russian and foreign Wikipedia!!! 7) I also want to note that some Administrators are editing warriors and constantly replenish my contribution. I ask that you take measures with respect Xzf (talk) 18:28 13.05.2020

123 Xzf (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Xzf (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No reason given. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2020 (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.

123 Xzf (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Meters/Kate Beckinsale LTA ‎ for socking history if there are any more unblock requests. Meters (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]