User talk:ZinedineZidane98

March 2015

Borodino

Why don't you check what the sources say, instead of mindlessly repeating your own personal opinion? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote most of the article and most of the sources listed are in my mine as well. So I have read the source material. Thanks.Tirronan (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

I've reverted your change on the Battle of Borodino. I did this because the consensus is to leave the victory section blank. There is no win/loss summation that covers this battle correctly. See the War of 1812 for another example, or the Battle of Jutland. You have been blocked for edit warring for this behavior please do not invite another block. Tirronan (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you check what the sources say, instead of mindlessly repeating your own personal opinion? - ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Battle of Borodino, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Charles (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"does not appear to be constructive"? Excuse me? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Battle of Borodino shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD 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. Charles (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the Talk page, you aren't. So.... wtf? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2014 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: ). Thank you. Charles (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Battle of Borodino

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Battle of Borodino. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked). EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2014 (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).

ZinedineZidane98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was simply restoring the to the article to the version that agrees with what the sources say. If you look at the sources and the talk page, what Charles was doing was clearly vandalism. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In my opinion, Charles was acting in good faith, and consequently, I'm declining this request. PhilKnight (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2014 (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.

January 2015/Charlie Hebdo

Your recent editing history at Charlie Hebdo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. DeCausa (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Battle of Borodino shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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.Charles (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: ). Thank you. Charles (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caleb Maupin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RT. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 18 July 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).

ZinedineZidane98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Discussion on Talk page has ended, as no one had even attempted challenge the eminent sources (five: Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford University, etc). In undoing my edit and blocking me, Drmies has deleted well-sourced information. Is there any policy I could possible be construed to have violated? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear edit-warring. If you continue edit-warring against consensus, your next block will be for a much longer period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:44, 18 July 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.

Enjoy!

User talk:Drmies#What does "a-holish" mean in English?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Specifically, this is related to Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world. The article is currently under a 1RR restriction, meaning one revert per editor per 24 hour period. clpo13_(talk) 17:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Keep fighting the good fight! Rangel.andre.pereira (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Lisbon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prior accounts

Have you used other accounts on Wikipedia? nableezy - 16:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ZinedineZidane98. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA reminder

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Also, per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, editors with fewer than 500 edits—such as you—may not edit articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Sarsour is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Are you sure? In what way? Please explain. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Linda Sarsour, and why is she in the news? What is the section of her biography that you edited about? It may hurt a little, but I'm sure if you think really hard, you can figure out her connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't come up with an explanation, then I have no choice but to ignore your reverts. Thankyou. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I caution you once again not to edit articles (or sections of articles) related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed. Next time, I will report you and you may be blocked from editing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 09:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrifying, I'm sure. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Maupin

Hi. It looks like you've been trying to nominate Caleb Maupin for deletion, and are having trouble with the technical aspects. If you like, I can do that for you. Just reply to this message and let me know. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, please help! :D ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Maupin (2nd nomination) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2018 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Sa.vakilian (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 09:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your record, it's a month this time. Bishonen | talk 09:48, 21 February 2018 (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).

ZinedineZidane98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

clearly spurious. what "disruptive editing" was taking place? what Wiki policy was I in contravention of? I have every right to remove mistaken and aggressive messages from my talk page. Also, why was an admin, Bishonen, watching MY talkpage, of all places? Did DougWeller or CharlesDrakrew email him, outside wikipedia channels, and ask that I be blocked? Pure maliciousness. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Attacking other users in this manner is a sure-fire way to have one's appeal declined. Wuff! -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2018 (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).

ZinedineZidane98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

clearly spurious. what "disruptive editing" was taking place? what Wiki policy was I in contravention of? I have every right to remove mistaken and aggressive messages from my talk page. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Pretty evident from this and the messages below that you don't understand the problem with your behaviour, so the block stays. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:29, 22 February 2018 (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.

Yes, you're free to remove messages from your talkpage, and my block had nothing to do with that. I blocked you for disruptive editing on Identitarian movement. Bishonen | talk 17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
In what sense was my editing disruptive? What policy did I breach? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe Bishonen was not watching your page and that's why they didn't respond. I think you were being disruptive because you reinstated your revert without a good explanation and without addressing the concerns of the other editor. And given your history of edit warring then you were blocked. I think you violated the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline, which states, "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." Notice the word "may", which means that sometimes it may extend over a short time or few articles. Some administrators probably define "pattern" as "two or more edits". Although the violation of the 3rr has already been dealt with, it is part of the pattern, which disrupts progress towards improving articles. That's why I think you were blocked in this instance but just the involved administrators can confirm this. Thinker78 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Beirut_(film), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Hollywooderino (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing content from content from this article. Consensus is to leave the controversy section in place, you're the only user performing repeated blanket removals.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Beirut_(film). Hollywooderino (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit carefully at Beirut (film). You have a long history of edit warring; you will not find yourself in a good position if you were to violate 3RR. Please continue to discuss the matter at the talk page; you may need to ask for a third opinion or open a RFC. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Gad Saad, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. IDW5605 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attacks, it's incredibly childish, and is creating an unecessary toxic environment. Let's keep it civil. Thanks, -- IDW5605 (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual dark web. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- IDW5605 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- IDW5605 (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical attack

What sources cited in the article affirmatively say that there was a chemical attack? I'm not disagreeing with the finding, I just don't know what reliable sources have found that without question; the sources cited in the article seem to say there is still no definitive proof since investigators have been kept out of the attack zone ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/13/politics/syria-chemical-attack/index.html, WHO, declassified French intelligence dossier, [1], etc. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Pundit

Gateway Pundit isn't a reliable source. Andrevan@ 12:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I thought it was a re-print. Let me find it in a proper source... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Tanbircdq (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YOu are now at 3RR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also as you have now been reverted a few time you should explain your objections on the talk page and not revert again.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

You should not accuse other users of trolling without good reason, and should never accuse users of being illiterate (as you did here [[2]]) as this is in violation of wp:npa. Doing so can get you a block. Please refrain from doing so in the future.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

French invasion of Russia

Some of the content is in the source, some is not. Please discuss on the talk page? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Sarsour

The biography of Linda Sarsour is under WP:1RR and the consensus required provision. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Please do not add contentious material to the talk page without a reliable source or use the talk page as a forum for publishing your own views on the subject. BLP policy applies to talk pages as well as articles; I have redacted parts of your comments that clearly violated policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're not my own views, and they don't violate policy, they appear in the article! Try reading it first! ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Softlavender (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 16:03, 6 August 2018 (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).

ZinedineZidane98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Involved editor. Third time Bishonen has blocked me in 6 months. Not once did he cite any particular policy, or quote any post I've made. Is this how Wikipedia admin behave? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I would concur with Bishonen's block. You clearly edited disruptively on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Internet of Garbage, improperly removing comments. As your request does not address your inappropriate behavior or state how you will behave differently if unblocked, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2018 (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: Compare this and this and all the removed warnings on this page. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I think you've posted the wrong diffs there... they don't demonstrate any breach of policy. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: [3]

Blocked. ZinedineZidane98 has been warned enough and disrupted enough and wasted enough of constructive editors' time IMO. I've blocked for a month, and if any admin wants to up it to an indef I'd be fine with that. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not evidence of involvement from an admin? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment by Bishonen dated 6 August at 16:08 appears to be a quotation from the above "Note" link (the one above the "Blocked" quoted comment) and not a comment posted in this talk page by Bishonen, and seemingly both were added by Zinedine at 16:33. Thinker78 (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it, Thinker78. Thanks for your note. (How my comment would tend to show "involvement from an admin" is another mystery.) Courcelles has now indeffed the user, see his reply to the latest unblock request, so my February block isn't that relevant any more. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 10 August 2018 (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).

ZinedineZidane98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I restored the comments, despite them containing personal attacks (which I redacted, but the user immediately restored the personal remarks). How on earth is that "disruptive"? Redacting personal attacks? I realized I had inadvertently deleted a "Keep" vote, so I restored it. What more could I reasonably be expected to have done? This is the third time in 6 months that Bishonen has blocked me without any reference to Wiki policy or any quotes/diffs of comments I have made. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have wasted enough of the community's time. Block raised to indef. Courcelles (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2018 (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 is not a personal attack. Nor is this. Nowhere there are you called a name. It is not a personal attack to question what you are doing. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking at the wrong diffs. Would looking at the correct diffs be too much to ask from a reviewing admin? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that you do not have to violate a specific policy to be blocked; if an administrator determines that you are being disruptive and other efforts to end the disruption have failed(including prior blocks), you can be blocked. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so how was I being "disruptive"? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered. Removing valid comments is disruptive. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be true, except for the fact that I restored them, didn't I? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearly inaccurate. I have no other comment unless you are willing to indicate how your behavior will change if unblocked. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @ZZ98, just FYI, but—put very simplistsically—WP:INVOLVED specifically regards previous involvement in a dispute, almost always about content, in which administrative tools are then used. So, if te only previous interaction has been administative (as would appear to be the case here), then I'm afraid it does not apply. Just an FYI not to base an appeal on it, really. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen's initial block was the result of him being involved in a content dispute with me. It's been personal from the beginning. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm it says your block for disruption at Identitarian movement, where you were edit warring and removing validly sourced content possibly to further a POV, and you weren't getting any consensus on the talk page. Considering your lengthy block log for edit warring and disruption, no one is going to be surprised that you were blocked again for the same behavior. And that was in February--yet here we are again. Oh, and I don't see where Bishonen blocked you for some content dispute--that's just a ruse and not worth spending more time on. I think your next block, whichever admin places it, is likely to be indefinite. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2018 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Openlydialectic (Result: ). Thank you. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]