User talk:Fona2000

November 2016

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, I'm Fæ. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kevin Spacey have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Fæ (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The X Factor (British TV series), you may be blocked from editing. livelikemusic talk! 23:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Your recent editing history at Take That shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. U-Mos (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. U-Mos (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you assume ownership of articles, as you did at Take That. Please discuss at Talk:Take That as you have been repeatedly invited to do. U-Mos (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. U-Mos (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can reply to the complaint if you wish. You are risking a block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

Hi. For future reference, please note that even a slow-moving edit war can result in sanctions. Thanks. El_C 04:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partially blocked from Take That

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks from certain areas of the encyclopedia for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 06:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring again

Coming back from a block for edit warring and picking up right where you left off on the Take That article isn't going to end well for you. You need to either continue the Talk page discussion or just accept that other editors don't agree with you on the matter, drop the stick and move on to editing other articles. Neiltonks (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

TLDR: you must convince the other editors of Take That of your thus-far unpopular perspective on Williams' membership, by discussing the matter until a consensus is reached on the article talk page. If the IP edit made to that page on 6th March was yourself, you'll be in violation of wp:3RR the next time you change the page back, and you'll then be liable to a further ban on editing. --Jonie148 (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. U-Mos (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Take That. U-Mos (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. U-Mos (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Take That. U-Mos (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Take That shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. U-Mos (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. U-Mos (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gary Barlow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lulu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

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 ~~~~}}. qedk (t 心 c) 15:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

Fona2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here Fona2000 I’m sorry for this, I’ll promise I won’t be anymore damage. And I will be better to communicate with other Wikipedia-users.

Please unblock me

Sincerely Fona2000 (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2020 (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.

Note

Please observe that according to WP:BLANKING, declined unblock requests may not be removed as long as the block is still in place. Favonian (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me

I’m sorry for this, I’ll promise I won’t do anymore damage. And I will be better to communicate with other Wikipedia-users.

Please unblock me

Sincerely Fona2000

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).

Fona2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Fona2000 I’m so sorry, please unblock me, I promise to behave better and be more friendly to other Wikipedia users. I have learned my lesson. Please give me another chance. Good evening:) Sincerely Fona2000 (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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. Yamla (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2020 (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.

I’m so sorry, please unblock me, I promise to behave better and be more friendly to other Wikipedia users. I have learned my lesson. Please give me another chance.

Good evening:)

Sincerely Fona2000

I know what I did was wrong, but I promise it will never happen again. I've already talked to the danish Wikipedia and I'm being unblocked tomorrow, they have decided to give me a second chance. I was blocked in the first place on the Take That page, because we where arguing about when Robbie left the group the second time. I said in 2014, but the other users said in 2012 and I kept chancing on the years and I'm very sorry for that. I should have used the discussion site.

Sincerely Nikolaj

You have not been blocked on the Danish Wikidia – yet. On the other hand, you have been up to the same tricks with sock-puppetry there, which has caused several angry comments. All in all, not a good case for unblocking your here. Favonian (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're being fair, I have made several good editing on Wikipedia. I know that I have been a jerk but come on... for once. You have to believe in people sometimes. I've been on Wikipedia since 2016, so please.

- Fona2000

Favonian Please please

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).

Fona2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Hello once again. I know what I did was wrong, but I promise it will never happen again. I've already talked to the danish Wikipedia and I'm being unblocked tomorrow, they have decided to give me a second chance. I was blocked in the first place on the Take That page, because we where arguing about when Robbie left the group the second time. I said in 2014, but the other users said in 2012 and I kept chancing on the years and I'm very sorry for that. I should have used the discussion site. Sincerely Nikolaj Fona2000 (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't address your sock puppetry. Your initial block was also for incompetence. I'm not really sure how you'd contest that, but you're not doing a good job of it right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2020

(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.

Hello once again. I know what I did was wrong, but I promise it will never happen again. I've already talked to the danish Wikipedia and I'm being unblocked tomorrow, they have decided to give me a second chance. I was blocked in the first place on the Take That page, because we where arguing about when Robbie left the group the second time. I said in 2014, but the other users said in 2012 and I kept chancing on the years and I'm very sorry for that. I should have used the discussion site.

Sincerely Nikolaj

Alright what the hell do you want me to do or say so my account can be unblocked?????? NinjaRobotPirate Ponyo User:Ponyo help help Fona2000 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2020

Your sole option at this point is to avail yourself of the standard offer (see WP:SO). In the meantime, I've revoked your talk page access as this is simply going around in circles.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

User has engaged in block evasion as NikoPAR, aiming toward a WP:CBAN under WP:3X. --Yamla (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in cross-wiki harassment on 2020-04-29. --Yamla (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]