User talk:Victorkkd

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Victorkkd. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Shirt58 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Battle of the Yalu River (1894), please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 20:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Shizuka Itō. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles on magazines

Hi, when you create a new article, be sure to include references to reliable sources that show that the subject of the article fulfills our inclusion criteria. For some tips on creating articles on magazines, see our writing guide. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ultra Console Game

The article Ultra Console Game has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced article on magazine of unclear notability. Equivalent article on Chinese WP has no sources either and seems mainly promotional in tone.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Play (PRC magazine)

The article Play (PRC magazine) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced article on magazine of unclear notability. Corresponding article on Chinese WP has no sources either (only link to magazine homepage).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Popsoft

The article Popsoft has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Magazine of unclear notability. Corresponding article on Chinese WP has no sources apart from magazine homepage. The one reference here looks like a press release.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Play (PRC magazine) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Play (PRC magazine) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play (PRC magazine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Do you know the total Japanese casualties in 萬曆朝鮮之役? If you know, can you tell me an exact figure for this and give me a reliable source about it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.173.116 (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Aerial battleship

The article Aerial battleship has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable/WP:MADEUP term. "Aerial battleship" is not used in sources for any real-life ship. The correct term is (as the 'reference' indicates) "Hybrid warship", of which there are several other types.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aerial battleship for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aerial battleship is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerial battleship until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. ₆an⁶sh₆ 05:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nanking Massacre denial 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. Binksternet (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Binksternet. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on Mao Xinyu, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Do not violate WP:BLPSPS. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Binksternet with this edit that didn't seem very civil, so I removed it. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Mao Xinyu. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Mao Xinyu. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not use unverifiable references such as "黄永胜任总参谋长期间的一些事" which is not from www.yhcqw.com (the September 2013 issue of Chronicles of History) but actually from the blog http://libra65.blog.sohu.com/277092940.html. Per WP:BLPSPS, you cannot use a blog source in the biography of a living person. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mao Xinyu 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. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Hundred Regiments Offensive 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. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions to Mao Xinyu have violated the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy for the following reason: As you have been told self-published sources are not acceptable as sources for living people unless they are written by the person in question which these are not. Please read the policy carefully, and avoid making future edits which violate it.

Remember that Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. We have an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that biographical content is written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.

Consider this a firm and final warning, made pursuant to the requirements of this ruling of the Arbitration Committee. Any further edits in violation of policy will result in your being blocked from editing. Blocks issued under this ruling may be of up to one year in length. Other possible sanctions may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behavior, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, or any other measures which may be deemed necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nanking Massacre

I want you to participate in the Nanking Massacre talk page expressing your opinion. Thanks! Banzaiblitz (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bizarre murder

The article Bizarre murder has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ill-defined, subjective term.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Diao Aiqing dismemberment

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Diao Aiqing dismemberment requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. BiH (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wang Qiang (serial killer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaiyuan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 1996 Nanjing dismemberment

The article 1996 Nanjing dismemberment has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, incoherent text. No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alexf^(talk) 01:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nanking Massacre denial 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:

2275043/19540hY59mJ_b.jpg 朱世巍《东线1941-1945：第一个冬天（Eastern Front 1941-1945 Vol4: The First Winter)]》P68</ref>Also People's Daily didn't post one single article or news that mentioned the massacre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nanking Massacre denial 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:

2275043/19540hY59mJ_b.jpg 朱世巍《东线1941-1945：第一个冬天（Eastern Front 1941-1945 Vol4: The First Winter)]》ISBN:7-5384-2874-7/E·42 P68</ref>Also People's Daily didn't post one single article or news that

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Future Perfect at Sunrise

Why do you block me when I am not violating 3RR and even if I did,I was merely adding sourced material?what is tendentious?You better answer me here because whenever I am unblocked I will ask for an explanation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorkkd (talk • contribs)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit-warring and tendentious editing on Nanking Massacre denial. 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:01, 1 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is absurd.I didn't violate 3RR today and when I take up vandalism against someone who removes sourced material suddenly someone blocked me.And what is tendentious?

Decline reason:

3RR is not a "privilege." You can be blocked for edit warring regardless of whether or not you reach/go over 3RR. Simply labeling someone's edits as "vandalism" does not make them so. only (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2014 (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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorkkd (talk • contribs)

some old-time "blog-source" claimer

Why don't you use the old method:go google some blog out and say"it is blog source"?Don't worry.We'll settle it.

Your recent editing history at Nanking Massacre denial 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. ——MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued tendentious editing and revert-warring immediately after the last block. 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}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 8 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

So I am blocked,unfinitely because I wanted to add sourced material,and someone is there safe. Could someone tell me how to tell"tendentious content"from untendentious ones?Or is it because someone is a stealth admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorkkd (talk • contribs)

Decline reason:

You have been blocked repeatedly for fighting an edit war in an article. You seem to have ignored the reasons for the block and just returned to exactly the same behavior as that lead to the block. If you want to be unblocked you need to both show that you understand why you where blocked for edit warring, and convince an administrator that you will stop doing it and edit productively. Peripitus (Talk) 10:41, 8 March 2014 (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.

Mr Future sunrise, I do thank you for your fix.But I question your verdict still.And if I ever was unblocked, I will ask for an explanation again and if you keep silent,I will ask in a public place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorkkd (talk • contribs) }}

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).

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

Request reason:

I know I did some edit war,which is done only because I wanted to add content that is definitely sourced.But someone kept removing them with the excuses "Zhu Shiwei(as the author)has no source"just why someone did the edit war just like me,and he is removing sourced contents I added and he is completely unpunished while I was blocked infinitely.Is there any reason for such a big difference?

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, your statement does not convince me that you would meet either of the above criteria. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:41, 14 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

About edit productively,so let's see exactly the reasons of blocks I received.The first time,some man said I used blog source in Mao Xinyu entry and my edit of Hundred Regiments Offensive is "misinterpretation and undue".After some reverts he reported me, and after I was unblocked,he didn't insist his"blog source"anymore and when asked about my restoring Hundred Regiments Offensive,he said"I didn't check those contents yet".The second time,when Zamflavius repeatedly remove sourced materials(which existed on zhwiki for 7 months through until on March 1st someone removed them as "unrelated material"),when I report his reverts as vandalism,someone suddenly blocked in the name of editwar and "tendentious".And this time,again, Zamflavius as the same edit-warring performer as me,as the sourced content remover(he didn't even try to deny the existence of the source),is completely safe.So what is the reason for this difference?Why don't I deserve even a limited block?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorkkd (talk • contribs)

Decline reason:

You're blocked indefinitely because you don't understand the reason you were blocked and so as far as the admins reviewing your unblock request know will continue to edit war. Except for some very limited exceptions, the reason for the edit war doesn't matter just that you are edit warring (especially after being warned and previously blocked for it). You are not blocked forever, just until you can show us that you understand the reason you have been blocked, and so can knowingly guarantee that you won't do it again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:53, 16 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

OK then,I give my word I won't go to edit war when unblocked, can I get a period then?

Decline reason:

I am not sure I believe you. What have you learned since March? John (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2014 (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.