Hopalong121
Pākehā edit
Why on earth would you delete my revisions? What exactly do you object to?--Hazhk (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've partially reverted back to a previous revision. I can only assume you object to my having removed the initial mention of the word "derogatory" from the lead? Please don't revert every single revision. I added several references. --Hazhk (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please explain your edits—any explanation would be appreciated. Which of my changes do you object to? --Hazhk (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is now my fourth attempt to extract some kind of rationale from you. Your most recent edit was not constructive: I corrected a formatting error and you have reinstated it. I'm now beginning to think that you are not previewing the edits of other users before you act. Please make sure you know exactly what you are reverting. You can use the 'diff' link to compare differences between two revisions.--Hazhk (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. gadfium 05:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hopalong121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Gadfium You should not have blocked me, and I want you to explain why you did. For the following reasons: 1) You have a malicious user, Hazhk, who is continually vandalizing clearly appropriate, verified edits. I am sick and tired of answering his questions as he simply undoes all of the edits, providing largely spurious reasons for the deletion as though he were the editor. 2) He has violated the Three Revert Rule (3RR) on this and on other pages. 3) This user has a clear ideological bent in objecting to edits that do not accord with his point of view 4)I am doing what Wikipedia is supposed to encourage, adding sources on a contentious issue from both sides from exactly the kind of sources the relevant material encourages, I have added about 5 or 6 academic sources (and a TV youtube clip related to an academic study). I am sorry if that upsets people, but the sources say what they say. Hankhz appears to be a leftist because he lists his "gender pronouns" on his description of himself, (I will refrain from saying what I think about that). However that fact is relevant in establishing bias on his part because he only undoes those edits of mine that a leftist would want to undo. 5) He is not an editor but is acting like one 6) You are getting a garbled, bias page as a result, and now you block me. 7) Finally, and most importantly read the page on Pakeha and on New Zealand Europeans, if you do not block Hankhz, I will start the necessary process to do soHopalong121 (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were blocked for, "Failure to discuss controversial edits, and edit warring." In order to be unblocked, you need to show that you did already (prior to the block) discuss your edits, and did not engage in any edit warring. You do not attempt to show either case here, so there are no grounds to consider lifting your block. Very specifically, your edits may have been correct (I'm not saying they were, but let's assume they were for the moment). That doesn't matter. That would not give you leave to engage in edit warring. Yamla (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2017 (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.