User talk:Chunk5Darth

Programming variables issue

Please go to Talk:Visa_requirements_for_Israeli_citizens#Programming_variables_issue. Thanks--Twofortnights (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better Call Saul...

...looks like your page, so I'll stay away even during airing. — Wylie pedia 16:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say something about attitude, but I'm too busy editing an encyclopedia in a way that I genuinely believe benefits it. Your removals were unnecessary so I felt retaining the information was more constructive than removing it. Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Your recent editing history at Walter White shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Given your edit summaries, I seriously suggest and hope you read WP:BLP before continuing to blindly revert. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 00:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've started a discussion on the talk page. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 01:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 31 hours for edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 02:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, Dreadstar. Thank you so much for giving me the option to respond before blocking me... oh wait a minute. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop edit warring, if you continue you will be subjected to further blocks. I'd recommend limiting yourself to 1RR per day and discussing on the talk page to find consensus; if that fails then follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes. Dreadstar ☥ 20:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Blacklist (TV series) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*[[Megan Boone]] as FBI [[Special Agent]] Elizabeth Keen, a novice [[criminal profiler|profiler].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PR spam

I acknowledge that my hatnote in Skyler White needed improvement, and I will not edit that page again until such time as the real-life writer has her own article. That said, please think twice before you call other editors PR spammers, instead of assuming good faith. Unless you've had a previous username, I've been editing Wikipedia about as long as you, and with an equally sincere interest in improving coverage in my own areas of interest, which include a few real-life SF/fantasy authors. Even a slightly obscure one with the misfortune to share her name with a better-known fictional character. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, I never called you a PR spammer, I called the edit a PR spam because I didn't even notice the name Skyler White in the article about Brust. Even so, she merely collaborated with him on one book, and the hatnote is confusing at best. Chunk5Darth (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already acknowledged: the hatnote and its Wikilink to Brust were a mistake on my part. Your distinction between maligning an edit as "PR spam" and maligning the editor as a "PR spammer" is a narrow one; in the rhetorical effect, there is very little difference to the reader. (For example, if I were to characterize somebody's edit as "vandalism," have I not accused that editor of being a vandal?) I'll conclude with a respectful suggestion that erring on the side of civility and politeness, perhaps even to the point of overkill, tends to work out better in the long run. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Visa requirements for Israeli citizens, 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.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A valid reason was given here, while your revert had none. I have taken the matter to the article's talk page. Please refrain from templating me again unless you have a really good reason. Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit belated

... but thanks a bunch for all your edits on The Arbitrator :) -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring at Breaking Bad

I know you must be familiar with edit warring, which you chose to continue after I requested you "cease, desist and go to the talk page". How you interpreted that as "revert, THEN go to talk page" is beyond me. I request you remove the material until a consensus is reached. Rusted AutoParts 21:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I must have missed the briefing when they changed the meaning of "requested" to "ordered"... but have no fear, someone has already beat you to the punch. Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RAP's wording shows a bit of frustration. That said, when the same edit is reverted four times by three editors in one day, discussion on the article's talk page is a damned fine idea. Heck, it would have been a good idea well before that. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on this talk page, right here. You have contributed nothing to the discussion - here or on the article's talk page, but keep reverting me anyway. I hope the pending admin review sees this. Chunk5Darth (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin review request

Just to give you a heads up, I've left a note at User talk:Dreadstar asking that administrator to review your behavior since you were blocked in June for edit warring. I'm dismayed to see that you haven't changed your ways, and still believe it is appropriate to carry on disruptive edit wars when you disagree with someone. Dreadstar suggested you voluntarily adopt a 1RR (one revert per article per day) for yourself, and I think you should have taken that advice. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

48 hour Block

There is no justification for your continued edit warring on Visa requirements for Israeli citizens or Breaking Bad. I've blocked you for 48 hours this time. You really do need to stop the edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 20:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I do appreciate your bringing the issue to my talk page, you indicated that you were going to continue edit warring and felt justified in doing so. That's wrong, you need to understand that Chunk. There are very few exceptions to WP:3RRNO, none of which your reverts are excused under. Dreadstar ☥ 21:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Dreadstar... I also got hot-headed and could not give up the "head-butt". Having said that, Twofortnights has clearly proven that they have got it in for me on a personal level, committing attacks here, here and here - on you as well. This is a severe matter and hopefully, will get resolved, as I don't wish to "look over my shoulder" when I edit here. We're all here to build a better encyclopedia, and powerplay definitely doesn't belong here. Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've owned up to your mistake, said you recognized the problem with edit warring and that you'd stop, I'll unblock you. But do not start edit warring again, if you have a problem, just take a breath, pause, and bring it to me or another admin or anything in the WP:DR process. Just don't edit war....ok? Dreadstar ☥ 02:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dreadstar. I truly hope that Twofortnights will not throw me the WP:BAIT at the first given opportunity, as their consequent comments here and here are continued personal attacks aimed at me, and a clear indication of being in an extreme "warrior mode". Thanks for unblocking me again. Chunk5Darth (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

I'm restricting you to 1RR per day on Breaking Bad, I didn't unblock you so you could go right back to edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 23:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar, I reverted the user once. That is also the user who began the edit war by removing the edit that was reinstated after a short consensus (the removal was more suitable for WP:TAG or WP:NINJA to begin with). However, I will respect your restriction. Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's best, believe me. There are other ways to get the right information into an article. Edit warring usually ends up causing grief. Dreadstar ☥ 23:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you're being personally attacked or if someone is making up rules on article talk pages, I'll check it out and step in as needed. I'd suggest ignoring the attacks and made up rules on the article talk page and instead take the issue to a noticeboard or admin. Reacting angrily or out of frustration weakens your own position and makes it look like you're the one with the behavioral problem. Dreadstar ☥ 22:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing ok? Dreadstar ☥ 04:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far, so good... Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Too Many Cooks (short), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Kelly. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Bad

Not sure why you are forgetting about your 1RR restriction. And frankly, I don't care one way or the other, but shouldn't there be a discussion at the article talk page (per WP:BRD) rather than edit warring? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion. Rather, multiple discussions. You are coming and simply changing what was established at the end of all that, in other words - working against consensus. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why you went against your promise to stay at 1RR - because someone new is "changing what was established"? Oh, ok. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly reverted against consensus. Don't try to make this about me. I made a mistake and acknowledged it. Your turn. Chunk5Darth (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Arnold Schwarzenegger shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's Bold (your change) - Revert - (me) - Discuss (you), not "bold and bold ad nauseam". Please stop breaking the cycle with the same repeated unconstructive edit. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unconstructive, it removes ambiguity and such a change been applied on multiple biography pages of people with dual citizenships to avoid ambiguity of meaning. You just don't like it and have given no arguments against it and are simply using reverting as a form of bullying. Remember, you do not have to exceed 3 reverts to be blocked for disruptive reverting. Skyerise (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are bogus, and I have taken this to the article's talk page. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting you self-revert

Just a note that your last revert was the 4th you have made in less than 24 hours. You can show good faith by self-reverting, which may avoid your being blocked for edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Arnold Schwarzenegger. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bill, the Killer from "Too Many Cooks".jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Bill, the Killer from "Too Many Cooks".jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning on the image page justifies the existence of the image on Wikipedia. Several sources in the Too Many Cooks (short) article discuss the killer as a central figure in the film, therefore an image of the killer is imperative to the article. Chunk5Darth (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of image

It appears an editor feels your uploaded image in Too Many Cooks (short) feels inclusion in the article fails WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."[1]--Oakshade (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I think this easily passes WP:NFCC#8 and the image should be included in the article and would support you if you restore it. --Oakshade (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, Oakshade - unfortunately, this discussion pretty much cornered me into giving up. You are welcome to chime in though, it is still there. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bill, the Killer from "Too Many Cooks".jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bill, the Killer from "Too Many Cooks".jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bryan Cranston as Walter White in "Felina", the series finale of "Breaking Bad".jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bryan Cranston as Walter White in "Felina", the series finale of "Breaking Bad".jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#9

is pretty explicit - non-free images can't appear anywhere but the article space. If you look at WP:TPO, one of the "examples of appropriately editing others' comments" is "Removing prohibited material". Non-free content is a prohibited material (on talk pages). Plus, it's entirely possible for the user to make his/her point without showing the image - we know how to read and click. Mosmof (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you made the connection yourself. Talk pages can contain almost anything. Find the rule that specifically prohibits images from being shown on talk pages. Otherwise, you cannot declare something "prohibited material". As long as the image still exists on Wikipedia, it is entirely OK to link to them on talk pages for discussion purposes. Either remove the image from Wikipedia or quit messing with other editors' comments. We cannot act out of this kind of zealot here. Chunk5Darth (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#9 reads, Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. and images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion. Yes, it's okay to link to them, (which Oakenshade has also done), but not okay to show them inline. I'm simply commenting out the display, not link. Mosmof (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I quoted that criterion when I removed the image transclusion, Chunk5Darth, so I'm baffled as to how you could have been unaware of it when you performed your first reversion of three (so far). —David Levy 06:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1RR restriction

You are still under a 1RR restriction on Breaking Bad, why are you violating that by reverting twice? Dreadstar ☥ 03:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor violates BRD with a very non-cooperative and feisty edit summary, I succeed at making that editor follow procedure and engage in discussion, and this is all you have to contribute to this? The 1RR was quite a while ago, looks like it's time to let go of the WP:STICK and get back to constructive editing. Don't you agree? Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts were absolutely incorrect. I'm sorry you feel that my edit summary was "very non-cooperative and feisty". I was shocked that you had reverted me for such a ridiculous reason ("Overpiping") for which there no policy, and I simply mentioned that it was, indeed, ridiculous. The original text was "Time Magazine". As I pointed out in my edit summary, this was incorrect for two reasons: it displayed the incorrect title for the magazine (the correct title is Time, not Time Magazine), and it was not italicized, as the title of magazine always should be (WP:ITALICS). It is most definitely not "overpiping" to pipe a link so that it displays the correct text. When you reverted me the second time, you linked to WP:BRD, and above you claimed that I violated it. You obviously don't understand that concept. First, there's nothing "bold" about correcting a simple error which was, to any reasonable person, incontrovertibly incorrect. BRD says to revert an edit "if it is not an improvement". Any reasonable person can see that my edit was incontrovertibly an improvement. And discuss: how ridiculous it is to suggest cluttering up the talk page to discuss something which is so trivial and obvious; it's just one step above going to the talk page to discuss fixing a typo. Please note that BRD says, in bold: BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. You claim you succeeded "at making that editor follow procedure and engage in discussion". You did no such thing. All you accomplished was creating disruption. When you reverted me the second time after I had explained why I had reverted you, I could see that you couldn't be reasoned with. I checked your talk page and saw it filled with warnings and block notices, and I realized it would be pointless to revert you a second time because you would most likely revert me again. I knew that the article was on many watchlists, and I was sure that someone else would come along shortly and correct it, which, in fact, did happen. Someone who apparently doesn't understand any of this should not be reverting at all; that Dreadstar allows you one revert is more than generous. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mike Ehrmantraut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Comic-Con. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've indefinitely blocked you for violating your 1RR restrictions and your disruptive editing. Dreadstar ☥ 23:10, 27 February 2015 (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).

Chunk5Darth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocked for "talking back" to an admin after having forgotten about a 1RR from months ago. My history will show far more constructive edits. Please consider unblocking or at least reducing block, as it smells too personal. Thanks to whomever looks into this. Chunk5Darth (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You did break your 1RR restriction. I'm sorry if you've having difficulties remembering administrative restrictions on your editing, but that's your responsibility. I see nothing indicating that this block is for "talking back", nor does it seem to "smell too personal". I don't see anything here indicating that you'd behave different if unblocked. Kuru (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2015 (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).

Chunk5Darth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I obviously don't intend to repeat the wrong pattern. All I said was that I forgot about it, and it was time to drop the WP:STICK. I apologize for having forgotten the 1RR. How do I convince you that I'll behave differently if unblocked? Chunk5Darth (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your history severely conflicts with the bullshit you're laying out here. You clearly knew you had a 1RR restriction on that article, and you've been blocked 3 times for edit warring in the past 8 months. I completely endorse the block made on your account by Dreadstar. - Your pattern of disruptive behavior tells the true content of your editing character, and there's no place for it here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:31, 28 February 2015 (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).

Chunk5Darth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is the last one. My history is much, much more than that, but thanks for the lovely language. There are many useful and constructive edits in it. Is that it then? Does "indefinitely" mean "infinitely"? Surely at least one person on the block review board can give me clear direction. I admit that reverting twice was wrong as I honestly forgot about the 1RR, and I am not sure how one could possibly proceed from this point on. Chunk5Darth (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An indefinite block is not necessarily infinite. However, generally, after an indefinite block, the editor is best served by waiting a period of time before requesting an unblock. It shows at least the possibility that you've had a chance to reflect. The standard period of time is six months, but there's no rule. Bbb23 (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2015 (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.

Unblock

I've unblocked you out of good faith. I also remove your 1RR restriction, but please conform to Wikipedia policies or you will be blocked again. Dreadstar ☥ 22:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]