User talk:Thewtfchronicles

ANI

Hello, Thewtfchronicles. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Frmatt (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at iCarly. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. EyeSerene^talk 09:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z9

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).

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

Request reason:

What the hell are you talking about? There wasn't any edit warring going on there.

Decline reason:

Yes, it was edit warring. You were repeatedly reverting the same content back into the article. Please work such things out through discussion instead of back and forth reverting in the future. ^Chillum 15:34, 13 November 2009 (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.

Thewtfchronicles (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You continued your problematic reverting/edit-warring despite just coming off a block ~~for the same~~, and being warned not to repeat that behaviour in this thread at WP:ANI. Diffs: [1], [2], [3]. EyeSerene^talk 10:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting is not "problematic" when its highly justifiable. The block I came off of was not even for reverting or edit warring. TWO reverts does not make it edit warring, especially when there had been a talk page discussion then reverting was halted by both of us. Neither of us deserve a block. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected my above. However, reverting is only justifiable for obvious vandalism or as a last resort (see WP:REVERT for more information. Also note that three reverts is not an entitlement; the spirit as well as the letter of WP:3RR applies. EyeSerene^talk 10:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. TWO reverts happened and there was talk page action, then a troll added the unneeded content back in.

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=THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. TWO reverts happened and there was talk page action, then a troll added the unneeded content back in.  |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=THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. TWO reverts happened and there was talk page action, then a troll added the unneeded content back in.  |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=THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. TWO reverts happened and there was talk page action, then a troll added the unneeded content back in.  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Thewtfchronicles (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, like you have been, I will request arbitration. Also, if you delete this warning, I will report you to the ANI. Dalekusa (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been insufficient attempts to pursue dispute resolution, so ArbCom would not accept a case here. Also, editors are allowed to delete warnings from their talk pages, so there would be nothing to report to ANI. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'll start out with a RfC regarding SpongeBob's Truth or Square, and take it from there. Dalekusa (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]