User talk:Almightyvegeta

Talk to me nicely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges including repeated edit warring,personal attacks and refusal to discuss issues. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Banned again for just changing the format? Check again I am using the right format as used in Hollywood films. Only top critics reviews should be included and not everyone.

And why is there no expiry time set? Am I banned forever!

Decline reason:

Yes, you received multiple warnings and multiple blocks regarding your edit warring. This seems to be the only way to get you to stop. Edits must be supported by consensus; if other editors are removing them, then that's often an indication that it's not supported by consensus. Your edits appear to be biased, focused against allowing a certain set of reviews from being noted in articles; claiming that you're simply changing the format is misleading and disruptive. Exhibiting an "everyone else is wrong" mentality (as you did here) is also problematic, as it prevents others from being able to discuss issues with you. Your block is of indefinite length because you've been blocked twice before for the same thing and still refuse to listen. As a result, you will remain blocked until you can convince administrators that you will conduct yourself in a manner in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Reading through and understanding the pages I've linked to would be a good start. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:30, 29 August 2012 (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.

Comment from blocking admin: Please see comments from A.B. [1] as they are relevant to this unblock request. Toddst1 (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm noting this here as it's apparently been an issue before: I noticed that you tend to remove messages from this page that you don't like. While normally you're free to do so, within reason, while you are blocked, your block notice and declined unblock appeals must remain on this page. This is so that other administrators reviewing your block can easily see what you've said in the past and what others have said in response. This history is important to conduct a thorough review of your block without belaboring the same points over and over again. If you do attempt to remove these notices from your talk page, you will very likely lose the ability to appeal on this page (again) and must seek alternative means of appealing your block. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:34, 29 August 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Alright, won't remove any content. Have it your way. But just saying, my format for reviews is still better. Please un-ban me now

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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 the guide to appealing blocks for more information. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

What do I have to do to get my editing privileges back? I have already said I won't change, alter any info without consensus.

Decline reason:

Evading block with sockpuppets will not help you get unblocked in any way. --MuZemike 20:32, 1 September 2012 (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.

What is your relation to User:Angry Joker? Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]