User talk:Toppsud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Toppsud (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I am appealing this block as I feel it is excessive and I did not do anything wrong. I was fixing up some POV language used on some articles. The edits improved each article and I provided valid reasons for them. An editor (Beyond My Ken) just reverted every productive edit that I made, despite not looking at the context or edit summaries, which violates WP:POINT. I made a few edits after the block (I was not planning to revert all of the original edits) that I felt were essential and provided additional reasoning in the edit summary. I am not a bad editor, and hope to get a second opinion on this matter. Toppsud (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were given specific advice on how to deal with the situation above. You chose to ignore that advice and to continue the problematic behaviour you were blocked for before. Huon (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2015 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Toppsud (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I am appealing this block as I feel it is excessive and I did not do anything wrong. I was fixing up some POV language used on some articles. The edits improved each article and I provided valid reasons for them. An editor (Beyond My Ken) just reverted every productive edit that I made, despite not looking at the context or edit summaries, which violates WP:POINT. I made a few edits after the block (I was not planning to revert back all of the original edits) that I felt were essential and provided additional reasoning in the edit summary. I am not a bad editor. Toppsud (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This verbatim appeal was already declined by an administator, simply reposting it will not lead to an unblock. See WP:GAB. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:46, 22 October 2015 (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.

Too bad it came out this way. I can see merit in your dislike of the way "cult" is used in every episode article for an old TV series. Your case could have been argued properly, but it wasn't. Instead, ignoring WP:BRD and other customs, you pushed ahead despite objections. I don't care enough to argue the case patiently, thoughtfully, and effectively, but I also know better than to waste time on thoughtless stubbornness. No great loss in any case, far as I can see. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

I have lodged a request for mediation on the J. Ralph page here. Karst (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)