User talk:2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Robert McClenon (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Per the above discussion, your range 2A02:A210:BA9:9080::/64 has been blocked for 48 hours for abuse of our processes. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 09:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC).

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You could've accepted I'm new and may have misunderstood the rfc format instead of immediately blocking me for "misuse", I don't see where the issue is with the rfcs and the fact that you didn't clarify does not help and seems missplaced in a discussion that's supposed to assume good faith 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8 (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=You could've accepted I'm new and may have misunderstood the rfc format instead of immediately blocking me for "misuse", I don't see where the issue is with the rfcs and the fact that you didn't clarify does not help and seems missplaced in a discussion that's supposed to assume good faith [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8|2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8]] ([[User talk:2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8#top|talk]]) 10:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=You could've accepted I'm new and may have misunderstood the rfc format instead of immediately blocking me for "misuse", I don't see where the issue is with the rfcs and the fact that you didn't clarify does not help and seems missplaced in a discussion that's supposed to assume good faith [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8|2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8]] ([[User talk:2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8#top|talk]]) 10:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=You could've accepted I'm new and may have misunderstood the rfc format instead of immediately blocking me for "misuse", I don't see where the issue is with the rfcs and the fact that you didn't clarify does not help and seems missplaced in a discussion that's supposed to assume good faith [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8|2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8]] ([[User talk:2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8#top|talk]]) 10:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Sigh, I did not read the guide to appealing blocks, I'm not going to jump through hoops for this, adding 1 or 2 lines has already cost me more time of my life than I ever wanted it to cost.

You claim I did not read this:

Creating an RfC

1. Open a new section at the bottom of the talk page of the article or project page that you are interested in. The section heading should begin with "RfC" or "Request for comment", for example "RfC on beak length" or "Request for comment on past or present tense for television series".
2. Choose a category and insert an {{rfc}} tag at the top of the new talk page section. The categories for the {{rfc}} tag are listed below; the category must be given in lower case.
   • Example: {{rfc|econ}}
   • See details below on the meanings of some of the categories. If no category seems to fit, pick the one that seems closest.
   • If the RfC is relevant to two categories, include them both in the same {{rfc}} tag. For example: {{rfc|econ|bio}}
   • Don't add two {{rfc}} tags in the same edit. If you want to start two RfCs on the same page, then read #Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page first.
3. Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the {{rfc}} tag. Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date). Failing to provide a time and date will cause Legobot to remove your discussion from the pages that notify interested editors of RfCs.
4. Publish the talk page. Now you're done. Legobot will take care of the rest, including posting the RfC in the proper RfC lists. It may take Legobot up to a day to list the RfC, so be patient.

I however have. If you have specific issues with how I did it, please point them out. As the page says, I'm supposed to make a statemnet of what the issue is and keep it as short as possible, which I have.