User talk:Jacee215

Your submission at Articles for creation: Takaku Fuke (May 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Takaku Fuke and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Takaku Fuke, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jacee215! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TrickShotFinn (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Remember to sign your posts

Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 18:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}.  —valereee (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is unacceptable. I've blocked for 31 hours to see if we can get this editor's attention. —valereee (talk) 18:55, 18 November 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).

Jacee215 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Overbearing mod potentially the girlfriend of the user I responded too. No attacks toward the person were made, except for the statement that they do not seem very knowledgeable on the subject which I dont think is very personal.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block. I am honestly surprised the block was not for a longer period; suggesting eugenics is a good way to be removed permanently from contributing to Wikipedia.

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. Izno (talk) 23:06, 18 November 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.

• Wait, whose girlfriend am I? My husband of 32 years will be very surprised. :D

But seriously: why would you assume there was a romantic relationship here? I am afraid I am going to have to insist on an answer to this question. —valereee (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Jacee215, please be careful here. You have a 31 hour block and that could easily have been an indefinite block. Your unblock request was totally inappropriate and had I reviewed it, I'd have considered extending your block. Please step back before taking any further action here. You are an enthusiastic editor who's currently stepping over the line. --Yamla (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

no

Takaku Fuke

I've spruced up Draft:Takaku Fuke the best I could. Though I would not be surprised if it gets rejected. With exception to that proto MMA fight and being part of early Pancrase, I'm not entirely seeing his significance. And if Guy Mezger is right, those early Pancrase fights are in same situation as Volk Han's 1995-1999 stuff. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@admins I 'd like the record to show. I take personally an attack on the veracity of Takaku Fuke's fights.

guys mezger is wrong and if i were u i wouldnt worry about guy mezgers opinion. Takaku Fuke was a man of honor.

November 2021... again

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for a number of reasons: a. treating Wikipedia as a battleground; b. making unacceptable personal attacks; c. violating AGF and casting aspersions on other users; d. grossly violating standards of reliable sourcing; e. also grossly violating normal guidelines of engagement; f. avoiding scrutiny by using at least two IP addresses (admins: this is CU-confirmed). You may try an unblock request, which in my opinion should address all these points. For the record, I am not User:Valereee's girlfriend. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Let the record show no evidence was given and this mod used a thesaurus writing this.