User talk:Rallyhall

August 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Scotiabank Arena. 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. Please stop adding WWE events on this article. By consensus on the talk page, WWE events are not be included. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Sportsfan 1234

Explain to me how my edits are disruptive, when I am adding an event to the page for Scotiabank Arena, along with the consensus on the talk page that you speak of. Even so, a consensus should not be okay with erasing something that took place at a venue. Rallyhall (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234 after looking at the talk page for the Scotiabank Arena, I want to highlight someone who had a dissenting opinion to yours.

"I'm thinking of a compromise solution: for temporary tenants such as WWE, concerts, political conventions, and video game competitions (and even state funerals), they can be put in a separate section away from the primary tenants (ice hockey, basketball, and lacrosse)" @Johnny Au 02:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, this edit I did would still have been constructive, and allowed. Next time do not try to intimidate me or issue false warnings or I will take it to other admins. Rallyhall (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Tazetheog per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tazetheog. 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.

Mz7 (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mz7,

I am not sure why you decided to issue my account a block, especially when I do not know the person behind the account you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet of, plus your evidence you presented is me re-instating something that the other user because it was meant to be there, but because others had made edits to the page, I was not able to revert back to an edit made by @Tazetheog. I will be appealing this decision. Rallyhall (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]