| Revision as of 04:55, 22 April 2015 editBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,570 edits →Block per WP:MRMPS: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:03, 22 April 2015 edit undoJosé Antonio Zapato (talk | contribs)101 edits →Block per WP:MRMPSNext edit → | ||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> To enforce {{#if:|]| ]}}, and for edit warring on the page ], as described at ], ]you have been ''']''' from editing for '''48 hours'''. You are welcome to ] once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ] (]) 04:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).</small></div><!-- Template:uw-csblock --> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> To enforce {{#if:|]| ]}}, and for edit warring on the page ], as described at ], ]you have been ''']''' from editing for '''48 hours'''. You are welcome to ] once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ] (]) 04:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).</small></div><!-- Template:uw-csblock --> | ||
| {{unblock|reason=I reverted the same re-insertion of BLP violations several times, as I reported I believe removing BLP violations is exempt from edit warring restrictions - is that not the case? Either way, could someone please remove (which restored the BLP-violating content, e.g. a statement sourced to buzzfeed describing a BLPGROUP's finances as "murky") and protect the article? I would be satisfied with that alone if this block didn't prevent me from contributing to the I began to address the continued re-insertion of this content.}} | |||
Revision as of 06:03, 22 April 2015
José Antonio Zapato, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi José Antonio Zapato! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Lightbreather (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
I have filed a case at ANI re: Not That Kind of Girl
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
ANI notice
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Welcome!
|
if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the Thank you! José Antonio Zapato (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Men's Rights Movements article probation notification
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Block per WP:MRMPS
To enforce community authorised sanctions, and for edit warring on the page A Voice for Men, as described at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation,
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).
José Antonio Zapato (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I reverted the same re-insertion of BLP violations several times, as I reported here. I believe removing BLP violations is exempt from edit warring restrictions - is that not the case? Either way, could someone please remove this last undo (which restored the BLP-violating content, e.g. a statement sourced to buzzfeed describing a BLPGROUP's finances as "murky") and protect the article? I would be satisfied with that alone if this block didn't prevent me from contributing to the BLPN discussion I began to address the continued re-insertion of this content.Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I reverted the same re-insertion of BLP violations several times, as I reported I believe removing BLP violations is exempt from edit warring restrictions - is that not the case? Either way, could someone please remove (which restored the BLP-violating content, e.g. a statement sourced to buzzfeed describing a BLPGROUP's finances as "murky") and protect the article? I would be satisfied with that alone if this block didn't prevent me from contributing to the I began to address the continued re-insertion of this content. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I reverted the same re-insertion of BLP violations several times, as I reported I believe removing BLP violations is exempt from edit warring restrictions - is that not the case? Either way, could someone please remove (which restored the BLP-violating content, e.g. a statement sourced to buzzfeed describing a BLPGROUP's finances as "murky") and protect the article? I would be satisfied with that alone if this block didn't prevent me from contributing to the I began to address the continued re-insertion of this content. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I reverted the same re-insertion of BLP violations several times, as I reported I believe removing BLP violations is exempt from edit warring restrictions - is that not the case? Either way, could someone please remove (which restored the BLP-violating content, e.g. a statement sourced to buzzfeed describing a BLPGROUP's finances as "murky") and protect the article? I would be satisfied with that alone if this block didn't prevent me from contributing to the I began to address the continued re-insertion of this content. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}