User talk:Docteur

Dickhead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8971:C600:A041:6C2B:5CD3:56C1 (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Mechanic1c (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

This is your only warning; if you introduce jokes into articles again, as you did at Radiohead, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Laber□^T 22:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for an AfD. If the article is fine it will be established in the debate.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Katie^talk 22:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I requested an AfD! It should have been discussed in the deletion page, instead of reverted! WP:CLOSEAFD was not followed in any way! Are some pages immune to AfD? News to me. I would have liked to do the same thing when a page I worked on an many people liked was deleted. We have a process for a reason. Whoever banned me has to explain how did they, in any way, followed WP:CLOSEAFD. I did nothing wrong.

Decline reason:

Oh please. You were warned. You were blocked. You clearly weren't trying to improve the Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 23:05, 1 May 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).

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

Request reason:

It doesn't make sense. The person who should be blocked is Jokullmusic, who deleted the article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiohead&diff=718160864&oldid=718136126 All I did was to submit an AfD properly so that it would be discussed. I didn't even realize it was a famous band and their website was not working. Not everyone in the world is an American! I'm sorry if it's obvious for you that those people are notable, but then if should have been debated instead of blocking me. Nothing happened like WP:CLOSEAFD prescribes. Docteur (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

To save any further waste of time here, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page. WP:UTRS is available to you if you wish to make a further appeal, but for any chance of success you would need to change your approach significantly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:00, 2 May 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.