User talk:Krett12

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).

Krett12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I promise to stick to reverting vandalism and other basic things

Decline reason:

Considering how you ignored multiple attempts to reason you in the past, this request is nowhere near to giving me the confidence about unblocking you. Max Semenik (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2016 (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.

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).

Krett12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The only ones that were valid and explained WHY it was wrong were s long time ago

Decline reason:

That is plainly not true. I really like to help people get unblocked, but your failure to even see the problems here means that I can not see any justification for unblocking at this time. There have been many many warnings here, up until this very month, yet you have simply blanked them all before requesting an unblock - I urge you to go back and properly understand them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2016 (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.

So what warnings/issues from admins and other users do you consider "valid", and which ones do you consider invalid then? only (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained--but I"m willing to do it again. This IS valid. It explains why they consider it wrong in a politely and civilly voiced manner. I responded, and everyone went to bed happy that night. This, in my opinion, is not valid. It doesn't actually explain why, says snarky and sometimes even intimidating thing that I will "be reported" (something that is by itself innapropriate), even though the error I made was fairly minor and definintely was in no was deserving of that.

That clarified enough? Krett12 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just removed the declined unblock requests with the comment "I know it says to not remove unblcok requests but they are taking up a lot of space". That means you clearly know that you must not do that, so do not do it again or you are likely to lose the ability to edit even this talk page. I have to say, this looks like yet another example of you not listening and just going ahead with whatever you personally think is best regardless of Wikipedia policies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you did not respond to my actual point. Krett12 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had in my decline of your unblock request when I said "There have been many many warnings here, up until this very month, yet you have simply blanked them all before requesting an unblock - I urge you to go back and properly understand them". If you think I am wrong, then please feel free to post a new unblock request and another admin will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I put up two? I have two different reasons. Krett12 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You only need one unblock request - you can include as many reasons as you want in it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this will likely be my last try:

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Krett12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

.

Please let me know your concerns if you have any. Krett12 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]