User talk:Bcdpvz2

January 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Allthefoxes. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User talk:JohnBlackburne have been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Thomasettaei. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Please do not misuse the help template. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please so not misuse the semi protected edit request template --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}}. Huon (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

Bcdpvz2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Huon unblock admin press not disruptive editing. --Bcdpvz2 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No useful edits from this account. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:19, 31 January 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.

That was a quick turn of attitude. I wouldn't unblock.Mlpearc (open channel) 19:15, 31 January 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).

Bcdpvz2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unblock again. --Bcdpvz2 (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I do not understand this request, but it certainly does not present a reason to unblock. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:33, 31 January 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.

I don't understand this message at Simple Wikipedia, but admins considering future unblock requests may want to take it into account. Huon (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is requesting a global lock at Meta? :) — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]