User talk:Xxctly

Welcome!

Hello, Xxctly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Text is ok, change the headline

Hello Xxctly - the headline is not ok, you are right - but the text is ok. I revert it and chang the headline. You can answer me and we work on a consent for this. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The text is really not OK. The section says nothing coherent that is not already said. Given that a book called "The Bang Bang Club" was written by two of the members, them saying the club doesn't exist is much more nuanced than you seem to recognise. One line of that section may find a place elsewhere in the article. The section itself does not add anything to the article. Xxctly (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - can we diskus this at your site? I think it is possible to find a consent. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS - we can diskus this an the talk page of the article too. But I need time to answer - RL is taking the most of my time. About better english of my text - no problem - I like if you help to do it better - only explain it first on the talk page. I am a German. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed to Rbka.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

No, this account has not been and will not be used abusively. I have no idea where you perceive anything other than solid improvements to articles. Please specify which edits you think made articles worse and I'm sure we can discuss.

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) 12:48, 25 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

It obviously did address the reason for the block. The claimed reason is that this account has been or will be used abusively. That claim is extremely insulting and has no basis in reality. As I said before: you may, if you believe otherwise, identify the edits that you think are not solid improvements to articles.

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. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:40, 25 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

OK, so if you think it's funny to leave the same nonsensical boilerplate text again, then here is the same clear and factual response as before: It obviously did address the reason for the block. The claimed reason is that this account has been or will be used abusively. That claim is extremely insulting and has no basis in reality. As I said before: you may, if you believe otherwise, identify the edits that you think are not solid improvements to articles.

Decline reason:

This is nothing about your editing - you have been block as a sock of User:Rbka. That is the relationship that you must explain. Since this is a checkuser block there is technical evidence backing up this block so a simple denial will get you nowhere. You now have had sufficient opportunities to appeal here so your next appeal is likely to be your last, here, so you should make it constructive. Just Chilling (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2017 (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.

Or we may repeat our question that you have not addressed. WP:SOCK. You created two accounts in short order despite being instructed to use one....and you keep creating socks. Perhaps if you had behaved, you wouldn't have these problems. We're discussing your behavior.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Where is the abuse? On this or any other account you believe I have used? Xxctly (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been blocked for edit warring 16 times, personal attacks 17 times, disruptive editing 4 times, and block or ban evasion 235 times. That I know of. I think that's enough games, at least with this account. Kuru (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2017 (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.