User talk:Strfornawuks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

April 2014[edit]

Information icon Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing, POV-pushing, and edit warring at International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Strfornawuks (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

are you kidding me User:Bbb23 Israel is "partially recognized states" why you should be blocked &# Given that User:Bbb23 block are politically motivated and diverge from the common standards in Wikipedia you should be unblocked Strfornawuks (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First, rationale looks pretty solid to me based on what I saw at ANEW; second, failure to assume good faith in an unblock request is usually a pretty good way to get it denied; third, what's the deal with this second-person narrative here ("you should be unblocked"). — Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

OK, for reverting the above, you have not only earned a doubling of the block time, your talk page access will be revoked for the duration. Reverting an administrator's denial of your unblock request is inexcusable. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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 you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)