User talk:Schluessel

August 2010[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Phoenix Suns, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —Chris!_c/t 03:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Phoenix Suns, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Chris!_c/t 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:40, 2 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

i only deleted the recent add of one sentence. my last revert wasn't to delete the whole paragraph

Decline reason:

The fact that your final act of removing properly sourced content wasn't as bad of some of your other acts of vandalism/edit warring doesn't persuade me to believe that you understand why what you were doing was not the right approach. Maybe read up on WP:VANDAL and WP:EDITWAR before requesting unblock again. I am declining your request for unblock 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 our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked>? what did i do wrong?

Decline reason:

You made an insulting comment at Talk:Jersey Shore (TV series) contrary to the policy on WP:Biographies of living persons, and you edit-warred by repeatedly blanking portions of Phoenix Suns despite warnings. JohnCD (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2010 (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.