178.143.106.39 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello. I don't quite understand what happened. My account was blocked and so was my IP. However, the 14-day IP block was supposed to expire today. But I still can't edit. Therefore, I would like to appeal to the block. First of all, I want to say that its educational function was partially fulfilled. I waited two weeks and really had time to think about my mistakes. At the same time, I would like to say that what I was blocked for was not vandalism or abuse. I simply admit that I made a mistake. Yes, I should have looked for consensus more during the edits. Today I realize that's what Wikipedia is about. I should have let the administrator guide me. Regarding block IP for account abuse and sockpuppetry. I didn't know about this at all. In this case, I was not familiar with Wikipedia's policy. Today, however, I know that and I would not act the same way. I know ignorance is no excuse though. But I think my two-week block is over. I cannot judge whether the punishment was adequate. But I know that it fulfilled its educational function, I also already know the policy regarding accounts and I am ready and determined to make edits in consensus with all users. I don't think I'm a threat to Wikipedia, but more and more a benefit. I realize that some of my edits were harmful and I regret it. I know that it is necessary to be consistent and to do systematic self-reflection. However, I am convinced that the vast majority of my edits were of benefit to Wikipedia, and if you doubt that, I will be happy to show you the results of my work, which I want to continue. For Wikipedia, the largest online free encyclopedia. For a great project. 178.143.106.39 (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
August 2022 edit
Hello, I'm Vacant0. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ordinary People and Independent Personalities have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Vacant0 (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the warning! I have reverted the original references to conservatism. I also edited the introduction about the party to a more structured and accurate version, to which I added references. I standardized the short description following the pattern of other articles about political parties. --178.143.106.39 (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
178.143.106.39 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is a response to the edit for Number 57 that led to my block. Firstly. You wrote at the end of your summary where you reversed my edit "Is another block needed?". I consider this to be an absolutely inappropriate way of communication. All of us here should be mature and intelligent people. And especially those who serve as admin. You should be a moral authority and so should your communication - prudent and humble. I consider this a highly inappropriate threat and a show of power in the most arrogant way. I strongly request you to avoid it. Secondly. Is "Properly format infobox etc." a sufficient and accurate summary? Again, I wonder if this is how the admin himself should work, if such a summary is not worthy even of an ordinary user. However, I will digress from your reluctance as an admin to explain your edits for the good of the entire community to the point of the editorial conflict. I inserted a link to the article about the party and its abbevertion in field the "Party". Yes, I know that thanks to wiki abbevertion, it would be sufficient to insert the name of the article. But, I will use the SMER–SD as an example. In the 2020 elections, the party was still called Direction – Social Democracy and used the abbreviation SMER–SD. And it changed its name in 2021. So if I use what you call "properly format", then the article will simply be untrue because it will list new SMER–SSD abbreviation. Therefore, there is the name of the article with the then abbreviation SMER–SD. So is the color - as the party has adopted a new visual and a new color. Again only in 2021. And this may happen in the future for other parties as well. Wikipedia should be standardized and have one format. Therefore, I do not understand why this formatting could not be used, which ensures that the infobox is factual and correct. In the case of your "properly format", in the case of the SMER–SD Infobox, it will already be incorrect and misleading, with the possibility that it will be the same with other parties in the future. Thirdly. I would call what you are doing crazy reverting without looking at what you are actually reverting. Can you try to explain to me what the problem is with the party table I added? None. There is no contradiction here. If you were willing to work for the good of the community again, you would not make a total revert, but you would simply revert what is contradictory and preserve what is not. But you didn't do that and thus you hurt the community and our encyclopedia. In the end, I want to say one thing. I urge you not to ignore my post. I urge you not to argue and not to threaten. So that you don't answer with two words, but express yourself properly. You are an admin - you should be an authority. But not by the authority that threatens. An authority that is a model. I believe in effective communication with you that will lead to results. Because that's the only way we can avoid editorial conflicts that harm the Wiki and accusations of non-constructive edits that you accuse me of. This response was written before I found out about my block. I can't even comment on that anymore. I know these are strong words, but I'm starting to see this as a scam, bully and an abuse of power. I feel like I can't even defend myself on this platform anymore. I hope this post will open your eyes. Please point to my only blockable edit after the last block has expired! I think I have a right to this information. --178.143.106.39 (talk) 7:22 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
Please concisely describe how your edits merited a block, what you would do instead, and how you constructively edit. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
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.
account blocked? edit
You are blocked. Whether you are logged in, create another account to evade your block, or edit not logged in. You are blocked. You are evading that block. Please request unblocking via your account. Please stop evading your block. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |