User talk:Renewal6: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:10, 20 September 2021 editDronebogus (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users21,221 edits →Surviving Veterans of World War II ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:38, 20 September 2021 edit undoRenewal6 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers31,352 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 70:		Line 70:
	<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing because your account is ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- 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 ~~~~''}}.  ] (]) 18:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-voablock -->		<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing because your account is ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- 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 ~~~~''}}.  ] (]) 18:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-voablock -->
	{{unblock reviewed\|reason=I have been blocked for disputing the rightfulness of an AfD discussion closure. If I chose the wrong means to do that, the accusation of having created a vandalism-only-account, i. e. the reason for getting blocked, would still be unfounded. Due to the fact that I created this account primarily in an attempt to prevent what I perceived as vandalism from other users, I feel obliged to contest this categorization being diametrically opposite to my self-conception. ] (]) 13:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)\|decline=You repeatedly reverted a valid close of a deletion discussion - that is clearly disruptive. You do not offer any assurances that you will not engage in similar conduct in future. In this context, I am declining your request. ] (]) 14:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)}}.		{{unblock reviewed\|reason=I have been blocked for disputing the rightfulness of an AfD discussion closure. If I chose the wrong means to do that, the accusation of having created a vandalism-only-account, i. e. the reason for getting blocked, would still be unfounded. Due to the fact that I created this account primarily in an attempt to prevent what I perceived as vandalism from other users, I feel obliged to contest this categorization being diametrically opposite to my self-conception. ] (]) 13:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)\|decline=You repeatedly reverted a valid close of a deletion discussion - that is clearly disruptive. You do not offer any assurances that you will not engage in similar conduct in future. In this context, I am declining your request. ] (]) 14:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)}}.
			{{unblock\|reason=I genuinely apologize for having repeatedly reverted a closed discussion and accept that it was not only inappropriate, but even contra-productive. Secondly, I assure that I have learned my lesson and have become more sensitive, so that I won't act in a similar disruptive way in the future. Finally, along with the hopefully reasonable arguments in my first appeal, I would also like to reject the suspicion of having created a sockpuppet account: I had been a casual non-registered editor for several months, before I decided to create this account mainly in order to improve the quality of that one specific article. I engaged in the AfD discussion, because I thought my arguments were reasonable and the Misplaced Pages community could benefit from them.
			If that isn't persuasive to any administrator, I will gladly live with it and won't make a further appeal considering the blocking of my account to be as unrightful as the article closure that appears to me based on a misinterpreted consensus. Best wishes to every reader who seriously bothered to understand my point of view! ] (]) 21:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)}}.

Revision as of 21:38, 20 September 2021

Welcome

Hello, Renewal6, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 21:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Misplaced Pages etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of notable surviving veterans of World War II (2nd nomination)

It is considered inappropriate to close a deletion discussion you have participated in, see WP:NACD. I suggest you undo it and wait for someone else to close the discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Surviving Veterans of World War II

Don't you just love working on an article (for my case, for over a decade, only to have some (Personal attack removed) say 'it pleaseth me not, delete'? Bkatcher (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion that concerns you going on

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Renewal6_and_Bkatcher_being_disruptive_and_uncivil Dronebogus (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Renewal6 and Bkatcher being disruptive and uncivil. Thank you. Isabelle 17:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

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).

Renewal6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for disputing the rightfulness of an AfD discussion closure. If I chose the wrong means to do that, the accusation of having created a vandalism-only-account, i. e. the reason for getting blocked, would still be unfounded. Due to the fact that I created this account primarily in an attempt to prevent what I perceived as vandalism from other users, I feel obliged to contest this categorization being diametrically opposite to my self-conception. Renewal6 (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You repeatedly reverted a valid close of a deletion discussion - that is clearly disruptive. You do not offer any assurances that you will not engage in similar conduct in future. In this context, I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2021 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Renewal6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I genuinely apologize for having repeatedly reverted a closed discussion and accept that it was not only inappropriate, but even contra-productive. Secondly, I assure that I have learned my lesson and have become more sensitive, so that I won't act in a similar disruptive way in the future. Finally, along with the hopefully reasonable arguments in my first appeal, I would also like to reject the suspicion of having created a sockpuppet account: I had been a casual non-registered editor for several months, before I decided to create this account mainly in order to improve the quality of that one specific article. I engaged in the AfD discussion, because I thought my arguments were reasonable and the Misplaced Pages community could benefit from them. If that isn't persuasive to any administrator, I will gladly live with it and won't make a further appeal considering the blocking of my account to be as unrightful as the article closure that appears to me based on a misinterpreted consensus. Best wishes to every reader who seriously bothered to understand my point of view! Renewal6 (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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.

Administrator use only:

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 genuinely apologize for having repeatedly reverted a closed discussion and accept that it was not only inappropriate, but even contra-productive. Secondly, I assure that I have learned my lesson and have become more sensitive, so that I won't act in a similar disruptive way in the future. Finally, along with the hopefully reasonable arguments in my first appeal, I would also like to reject the suspicion of having created a sockpuppet account: I had been a casual non-registered editor for several months, before I decided to create this account mainly in order to improve the quality of that one specific article. I engaged in the AfD discussion, because I thought my arguments were reasonable and the Misplaced Pages community could benefit from them. 
If that isn't persuasive to any administrator, I will gladly live with it and won't make a further appeal considering the blocking of my account to be as unrightful as the article closure that appears to me based on a misinterpreted consensus. Best wishes to every reader who seriously bothered to understand my point of view! ] (]) 21:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |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 genuinely apologize for having repeatedly reverted a closed discussion and accept that it was not only inappropriate, but even contra-productive. Secondly, I assure that I have learned my lesson and have become more sensitive, so that I won't act in a similar disruptive way in the future. Finally, along with the hopefully reasonable arguments in my first appeal, I would also like to reject the suspicion of having created a sockpuppet account: I had been a casual non-registered editor for several months, before I decided to create this account mainly in order to improve the quality of that one specific article. I engaged in the AfD discussion, because I thought my arguments were reasonable and the Misplaced Pages community could benefit from them. 
If that isn't persuasive to any administrator, I will gladly live with it and won't make a further appeal considering the blocking of my account to be as unrightful as the article closure that appears to me based on a misinterpreted consensus. Best wishes to every reader who seriously bothered to understand my point of view! ] (]) 21:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |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 genuinely apologize for having repeatedly reverted a closed discussion and accept that it was not only inappropriate, but even contra-productive. Secondly, I assure that I have learned my lesson and have become more sensitive, so that I won't act in a similar disruptive way in the future. Finally, along with the hopefully reasonable arguments in my first appeal, I would also like to reject the suspicion of having created a sockpuppet account: I had been a casual non-registered editor for several months, before I decided to create this account mainly in order to improve the quality of that one specific article. I engaged in the AfD discussion, because I thought my arguments were reasonable and the Misplaced Pages community could benefit from them. 
If that isn't persuasive to any administrator, I will gladly live with it and won't make a further appeal considering the blocking of my account to be as unrightful as the article closure that appears to me based on a misinterpreted consensus. Best wishes to every reader who seriously bothered to understand my point of view! ] (]) 21:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Category:

Requests for unblock

Revision as of 20:10, 20 September 2021 editDronebogus (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users21,221 edits →Surviving Veterans of World War II ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:38, 20 September 2021 edit undoRenewal6 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers31,352 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 70:		Line 70:
	<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing because your account is ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- 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 ~~~~''}}.  ] (]) 18:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-voablock -->		<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing because your account is ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- 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 ~~~~''}}.  ] (]) 18:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-voablock -->
	{{unblock reviewed\|reason=I have been blocked for disputing the rightfulness of an AfD discussion closure. If I chose the wrong means to do that, the accusation of having created a vandalism-only-account, i. e. the reason for getting blocked, would still be unfounded. Due to the fact that I created this account primarily in an attempt to prevent what I perceived as vandalism from other users, I feel obliged to contest this categorization being diametrically opposite to my self-conception. ] (]) 13:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)\|decline=You repeatedly reverted a valid close of a deletion discussion - that is clearly disruptive. You do not offer any assurances that you will not engage in similar conduct in future. In this context, I am declining your request. ] (]) 14:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)}}.		{{unblock reviewed\|reason=I have been blocked for disputing the rightfulness of an AfD discussion closure. If I chose the wrong means to do that, the accusation of having created a vandalism-only-account, i. e. the reason for getting blocked, would still be unfounded. Due to the fact that I created this account primarily in an attempt to prevent what I perceived as vandalism from other users, I feel obliged to contest this categorization being diametrically opposite to my self-conception. ] (]) 13:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)\|decline=You repeatedly reverted a valid close of a deletion discussion - that is clearly disruptive. You do not offer any assurances that you will not engage in similar conduct in future. In this context, I am declining your request. ] (]) 14:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)}}.
			{{unblock\|reason=I genuinely apologize for having repeatedly reverted a closed discussion and accept that it was not only inappropriate, but even contra-productive. Secondly, I assure that I have learned my lesson and have become more sensitive, so that I won't act in a similar disruptive way in the future. Finally, along with the hopefully reasonable arguments in my first appeal, I would also like to reject the suspicion of having created a sockpuppet account: I had been a casual non-registered editor for several months, before I decided to create this account mainly in order to improve the quality of that one specific article. I engaged in the AfD discussion, because I thought my arguments were reasonable and the Misplaced Pages community could benefit from them.
			If that isn't persuasive to any administrator, I will gladly live with it and won't make a further appeal considering the blocking of my account to be as unrightful as the article closure that appears to me based on a misinterpreted consensus. Best wishes to every reader who seriously bothered to understand my point of view! ] (]) 21:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)}}.