Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Paul O'Grady. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as the text has been restored from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. StephenBuxton 12:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 13:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boo bloody hoo. How I despise these sad little people who think they own Wikipedia. Smurfmeister (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Nwy.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 13:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Editing in ignorance of policy will blow up in your face one day. You already have warnings; better to do a little reading than walk around blindfold. Tell you what, I'll be an Admin, you be an editor. That's what we're paid for, isn't it? This conversation is over. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 09:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this Admin is unaware that he should have created a new topic for his pretentious comment. And when I attempted to respond to his comments using his talk page, he deletes them. Wikipedia is billed as 'the encyclopaedia anyone can edit' - but apparently only if you agree with its self-appointed moral guardians (who are not 'paid' to do anything, despite the comments above)... Smurfmeister (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically the above admin is now blocked from Wikipedia. I'm still here. Gotta love irony. Smurfmeister (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Talk:Deaths in 2008, you will be blocked from editing. If this belongs anywhere, it's your talk page or mine. You clearly don't understand what article talk pages are for. Perhaps you missed my edit summary referring to Wikipedia:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages and Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. I've no qualms about blocking you for disruption and pushing an agenda, and I'm sure other admins will agree with my defence of policy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 08:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no vandalism - merely an expression of opinion. I would be happy to move any discussion to your talk page, but when I did just that you deleted it. Why ask someone to use your talk page when your response is to simply delete anything you don't like? If anyone is pushing an agenda, it's you. Smurfmeister (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - this comes direct from Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable:

Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable.

Obviously some policies are more 'defensible' than others eh? Smurfmeister (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a useless little turd he was. Smurfmeister (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Bad (album). Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Realist² 15:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just fed up with reading musical articles where the entire chart/sales section is hugely US-biased. A huge number of articles claim singles or albums 'failed to chart' when what they really mean is 'failed to chart in the US'. I know Americans think 'We Are The World' was written as their national anthem, but there are hundreds of other countries on this planet. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to List of recurring and minor Emmerdale characters has been reverted, as it introduced negative or controversial biographical material without providing a reliable source for this information. Wikipedia requires that all such material be sourced to address the issue of libel. Thank you. Shell ^babelfish 11:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to List of recurring and minor Emmerdale characters has been reverted, as it introduced unsourced or poorly sourced negative or controversial biographical material. Please do not continue to add such information. Thank you. Shell ^babelfish 12:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about FICTIONAL CHARACTERS - guidelines on the biographies of living persons are irrelevant. Smurfmeister (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not like the article India (cat) please start a deletion debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please do not edit Deaths in 2009 against consensus, the listing will just be restored. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vandalism, this is a serious point. There is already consensus on this issue - Jett Travolta was removed from the notable deaths page because his only claim to notability was who his parents were. India's only claim to notability was who his owner was. This is exactly the same thing. If you can show me a consensus AGAINST deleting India's entry on this page (I am not asking for the article to be deleted; that is a separate issue) I will leave it there; otherwise I will revert your change. Smurfmeister (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit which announced that India (cat) was up for deletion, as there doesn't appear to be an active AFD. You may restore the tag but if you do, please open a fresh AFD using the instructions on WP:AFD. For what it's worth, this article has survived 3 AFDs in the past, as shown near the top of Talk:India_(cat). It is unlikely to fail another one as long as President Bush is in office. Furthermore, it's customary to wait at least 3 months between AFDs. January 24th will mark the 3-month mark, so please don't re-nominate until then. If your goal is to see the article deleted, I recommend waiting at least 6 months after President Bush leaves office. Any sooner and there will probably be enough support to keep the article. There are already 2 merger discussions in progress. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I had nominated it for deletion, not linked to an old discussion. I see the article has 'survived' three AFDs before, but the decision has never been keep, always inclusive, which is why I think it's worth another nomination. I will try and re-nominate correctly. Smurfmeister (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want to make it the 4th nomination, then follow the rest of the instructions at WP:AFD to make it work. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions you are making. However, I would encourage you to be succinct in your coverage, per WP:PLOT. The article should not be a huge description of the plot. Could you help me tweaking the article so that it contains important points, while keeping detail to a minimum? Thanks. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed down on detail as requested, leaving in what I felt were essential additions (who died in the fire the section of the article describes etc.). However, I am a little disappointed that you requested my help in tweaking the page, but then simply reverted the edit when I didn't reply immediately. As much as I like Wikipedia, I have a full-time job to deal with too :0) Smurfmeister (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock #1523086 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I will contact the blocking admin to see what's up; at this point it seems that you don't have anything in common with the blocked user. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): autoblock of another unrelated user. Our apologies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Request handled by: Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Article was merged long ago by consensus. Do not continue trying to restore it on the claim that its target was deleted so it should come back. That is not how it works. It was update go to the correct article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Long ago'? Don't make me laugh. I contributed to it a matter of weeks ago. And you mean updateD, not update.Smurfmeister (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, it was merged in August 2009. One person wrongly undoing the merge after the list was deleted is not an excuse for you to follow suit. The merge was done per consensus and the desires of one (or two) fans of the ice cream is not sufficient to undo it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough I didn't go through the entire history of the article first just in case. Oh well, if it bothers you that much. I'd hate to think of you losing sleep. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. Cameron Scott (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not poorly referenced, it is from a national publication. Smurfmeister (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rumour from the News of the World, a tabloid newspaper that we do not consider reliable for such claims about living figures. If you are unhappy with existing policy on the use of the News of the World, I suggest you head over to the Village pump and try and change it. In addition, not only is global consensus against you, the discussion on the talkpage makes it clear that it should not be used. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed the source to the Daily Mail article that has already been cited there. Perhaps you will find this more acceptable. Smurfmeister (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding poorly referenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Adrian Chiles. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't poorly sourced - it's from the same Daily Mail article already cited there. Smurfmeister (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smurfmeister,it is a sad fact of the modern Wikipedia that pedantic "reasons" like "poorly sourced" are basically known as a code word for "I personally don't like what you have to say so there!" .This behaviour recently reached such epidemic proportions that several (so called) editors when on a series of mad and completely random entry deletions left,right and centre in a hilarious example of their (tiny) power going to their (tiny) minds.Not surprisingly these "rogue" editors were a huge public embarrassment to WIKIPEDIA and so the recent "policy change" (face saving exercise) of phasing out the infamous LOCK on wiki entries.Also these editors were very (very very indeed) quietly removed ("they left suddenly") and stripped of their powers.Of course you could argue that anyone who minutely "edits" a website for free in their spare time in return for a bit of (make believe) power must have the social life you would expect..And don't even get me started on the American "editors" who base their decisions on their religious and political beliefs (usually right wing bible thumpers of the worst kind) which leads them to patrol the Darwin wiki,the Abortion wiki and the George Bush wiki almost 24/7 in case "pinko liberals" post anything they don't like...!

Wikipedia does seem to have realised they are a force of the 1990's looking increasingly irrelevant in 2010 and beyond..

It took them long enough.

They do seem to have finally clicked on that if they BLOCK a person for laughably tenuous reasons ("we don't use that source for verification etc") they will simply go elsewhere.

Maybe even frankly grateful not to be associated with a website which is choking on Kafkaesque rules and ludicrous double standards ("my POV is more important than your POV so yours is deleted") perhaps..?

Wikipedia know only too well they will be left with Editors Editing Other Editors Editing More Editors in a constant loop until the site dies a slow death from public apathy.

And add to that...

Why actually reads it and quotes from it publically anymore..?

Wanna know something about someone or something or some event..?

Type it into Google and you'll learn more than here more often than not.

Now THAT's a verifiable and well sourced fact..!!

Keep up your attitude to the stuffed shirts here at Wikipedia,Smurfmeister,it is very refreshing and you are SO right..

86.43.215.174 (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to round up if Rainie should be split off or not. We are doing a vote to see if she should or not if you would like to vote please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders ‎. Thanks! MayhemMario (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC) =)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Deirdre Barlow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Ward (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) 10:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Bit of a Do, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maggie Jones (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) 11:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aldridge railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Four Oaks (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) 11:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Please revert the block on 87.238.84.65 instigated by the user Giant Snowman. This is a shared computer with no dedicated IP address; there has not been any vandalism from my account.

Accept reason:

I have softened the block on the IP so you can edit. In the future, if this happens again, you may want to consider requesting IP block exemption. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smurfmeister (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm unsure as to why you have received so many warnings for your "disruptive" editing. It looks more like a personal attack to me. You seem a sensible enough person so I have no idea as to why so many of your edits are deemed inappropriate. I'd like to say that I'm fully behind your edit you did on the coronation street character Toyah Battersby as it is confirmed that she will be returning in 2013. I only hope that your edit will not be reverted again. Yesilikecars (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :0) My warnings are largely as the result of one incident when an editor wrongly accused me of sock-puppetry. He's since been permanently banned from Wikipedia. I have no idea why the Toyah edit was reverted as I sourced it, but thanks for putting it right! Smurfmeister (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Upper Hand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simon Williams (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) 11:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mark Denham has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ϢereSpielChequers 08:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Smurfmeister (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering why you removed the unsourced info rather than add a ^{[citation needed]} tag? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk)

Of no particular importance, but ... re: "Right Said Fred were the first UK band since The Beatles ... "

a) "band" is singular; "Right Said Fred was the first UK band since The Beatles ... "

b) To be pedantic, "Right Said Fred is the first UK band since The Beatles ... "

(I completely agree with you that RSF will always "remain" the first!!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it was unencyclopaedic, regardless of whether a citation could be provided (which I sincerely doubt - unless there is a list somewhere of "most photographed Britons" in a set period!) Smurfmeister (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop being making threats and leaving angry mmessages. I am just in the process of replying to a comment left by yourself on JuneGloom's talk page.Rain the 1 22:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You described me as abusive. That was completely unwarranted. I WILL report you - that is a promise, not a threat. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, you mean a message left by 'you', not 'yourself'. Learn to speak English. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are behaving in a disruptive manner. You are not doing yourself any favors by carrying on like this. Please accept that you violated WP:OR. Add sources or move on.Rain the 1 23:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put your opinion on my edits aside and look at your own behaviour (notice I use the correct spelling). If you have a valid point to make, make it - do NOT accuse me of being abusive. It is unnecessary and just plain tacky. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am well behaved and you are being disruptive. Where are you going to complain and to who? I do not pick on editors if they make grammatical and spelling errors. Perhaps I should complain about that? But as I do not take anything personal on here, there is little point. This was never about you - just an article being destabilised with a large addition of unsourced information. Which is wrong.Rain the 1 23:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You continually ignore my original point, which is that you accused me of being abusive. I have NOT been abusive in any way, and by making this unfounded accusation you are NOT being well-behaved. I have made a complaint via the Wikipedia dispute resolution page. I hope that answers your question. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully they warn you about your behavior. Dispute resolution is not a weapon so you can be right. As you have been edit warring and broke the 3xr rule - I had no option but to report you. I have attempted to draw your attention to WP:OR and it's importance, but you just want to shout and score points - be that sniping at my spelling or trying to scare me off with threats of reporting - when I am just following protocol. You add over 3000 bytes of unsourced information, expect someone to challenge it.Rain the 1 23:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even when you've been shown you STILL can't spell a simple word correctly. Yet again you fail to address the fact that you made an unfounded, unnecessary allegation. You accuse me of making threats when I inform you I will report your behaviour, yet do exactly the same thing moments later. Your argument, right down to this ridiculous 3000 obsession, is copied entirely from another user's page. You have completely ignored the Wikipedia principle of assume good faith and decided to throw your toys out of the pram. GROW UP. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four days later and still no apology, or even justification, for describing me as 'abusive' and 'making threats'. Smurfmeister (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring at Miranda (TV series) and List of Home and Away characters (2013), as well as disruptive editing. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How childish. This situation would never had happened if JuneGloom had raised her objections to the content I added in a polite, courteous manner, and Raintheone had not completely unnecessarily referred to me as 'abusive'. Instead of blocking me, why not deal with people who edit Wikipedia with a 'one rule for me, another for everyone else' mindset? Smurfmeister (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was treated unnecessarily rudely by JuneGloom07 after an edit made in good faith. I simply pointed out that I did not appreciate her patronising tone when another user, not involved in the original discussion, accused me of being abusive (see edit history for Miranda (TV Series). I have asked said user, Raintheone, several times to explain why he made this personal attack and he has refused to do so. As I understood personal attacks were unacceptable; I believe this user is abusing his account status to push his agenda, as well as that of an editor he has a close relationship with (look at his talk page). All I am asking is to be treated with the politeness any Wikipedia user - hell, any human being - deserves. I do NOT deserve to be blocked and vilified for this. Smurfmeister (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no "other people were rude to me" exemption to our edit warring policy. You were given adequate warning, and even a chance to self-revert. I don't see any reason to assume that you understand the problem here. Kuru (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2013 (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.

The problem was entirely the creation of others. Had JuneGloom simply added 'citation needed' tags rather than arbitrarily deciding the information was useless (despite having added unsourced information of her own to a similar page that very day) then either I or someone else could have added sources. Instead, I was unnecessarily patronised and then attacked by another user. I won't apologise for asking not to be spoken to like dirt. Smurfmeister (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for resumption of edit warring after expiration of last block and earlier block evasion, as you did at Miranda (TV series). 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=I have added a clear explanation of why I reverted Bbb23's edit on his talk page. I also stated that if he did not agree with my reasoning that, should he choose to revert, I would not question it. This block was imposed instantly after my edit; I gave what I feel was a fair and civil explanation of this edit. I do believe a one-week block is either fair or appropriate here. [[User:Smurfmeister|Smurfmeister]] ([[User talk:Smurfmeister#top|talk]]) 02:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)}}request de-activated without review as block has expired. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing your post to User talk:Bbb23. Can you provide a diff? Tiderolls 02:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked Bbb23's talk page and my explanation did not save (probably because the block was being added as I was editing). I stated that my revert on the Miranda article was NOT in any way an attempt to start an edit war - it was because Bbb23's revert removed sources, but not my disputed original contribution (which was disputed due to a lack of sources). Obviously I would prefer my contributions not to be removed; however, I stated that if he feels they should be, I will accept this. I understand Bbb23's edit was made with the best of intentions - so was mine. Smurfmeister (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where your explanation is plausable and I accept your statement regarding making the edit in good faith. However, after two one block for edit warring on the same article you find it expedient to revert on the article without ever having posted to the article talk page. Can you appreciate how this appears? Tiderolls 03:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - however, it was only one block at the time I made the edit, I explained why in the edit history, and I went straight to the user's talk page to explain my action - the only reason I couldn't post that explanation was because a block had been immediately instigated. Smurfmeister (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's one block or two, my point is that I did try to make the intentions of my edit clear - ok, not on the talk page, but I explained in the edit summary and attempted to explain on the editor's talk page too; how was I to know they would block me without a word to me whilst I was typing? Smurfmeister (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Bbb23 has blocked me for edit warring, yet has not reverted my change?? Smurfmeister (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To revert you after blocking you would make Bbb23's block appear to be using their administrative tools to gain the advantage in a content dispute. Tiderolls 03:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of any reviewing administrator, I will clarify the sequence of events that led to the current block:

• While Smurfmeister was blocked, he evaded the block by this sequence of edits. The evidence that it was Smurfmeister was fairly strong. First, these were the only edits this IP made. Second, this edit, which was made by Smurfmeister before the first block, was very similar to this edit made by the IP, both in substance and in edit summaries ("Ref added"). I didn't notice the block-evading edits when they were made.
• After Smurfmeister's first block expired, another editor (involved in the original dispute) came to my talk page (starting with the May 11 post in the section) and complained about posts that Smurfmeister had made to their talk page and to another editor's (also involved) talk page. The editor said that Smurfmeister had resumed his attacking behavior. The editor also pointed out the block evasion.
• My response was that I didn't think the posts Smurfmeister had made on the two talk pages warranted further sanctions. I wasn't happy about them because I felt it would be better for Smurfmeister to let it go and move on in a more conciliatory manner, but I declined to block him. Although a closer call, I also declined to block him for the block evasion because I hadn't noticed it during the block, and as long as he behaved himself post-block-expiration, I chose to let it go. However, because I would have automatically reverted the IP edits as block evasion had I noticed them closer to real time (and increased the length of the block), I did not think it fair for Smurfmeister to "benefit" from the block evasion, so I reverted. This was an administrative action on my part.
• When Smurfmeister reinstated the edits, he crossed the line, and I blocked him. From my perspective, the block evasion and the subsequent reversion after expiration were part of a continuum of edit warring, and I blocked him for longer than the first time, which is fairly standard.

As for Smurfmeister's comments above, even if I accord him the maximum of good faith, he went about this all wrong. How can any editor think it's reasonable to revert the edits of the administrator who had just blocked him, particularly given my edit summary ("probable block evasion among other issues")? Nor did his edit summary evince good faith as he was simply arguing over content, which was irrelevant to the behavioral issues. If he really felt he had any right to restore his changes at this point, he could, as Tide rolls states, gone to the article talk page to seek a consensus for the changes, or he could have come to my talk page, not after the revert, but before, to discuss the issue with me. Instead, he reverted first and then supposedly sought to explain himself. That is typical and unacceptable edit warring mentality: revert and then explain.

I'll close this long explanation on a small positive note. Anyone who reads Smurfmeister's comments during this block can evaluate his credibility for themselves. However, even if one doesn't buy the "I was willing to self-revert" contention, his tone is an improvement compared to his tone during his first block.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As I have stated elsewhere, civility breeds civility - your response to Raintheone's vendetta against me was measured and non-biased (unlike some of the comments that have appeared); therefore I am more than happy to accord you the same politeness you did me.

I'm sorry you feel I went about this the wrong way, and I will reiterate that if you genuinely think my original contribution to the Miranda page was not of value, revert it and I will not re-add it. I have made this suggestion voluntarily and am happy to publicly state that I would not perceive such an action as an abuse of your admin privileges. However, what I would politely suggest you do is take a look at my previous contributions to Wikipedia (rather than judge me on my talk page as one of the users commenting on your talk page did). Years of useful contributions should not be ignored because of an admittedly silly edit in 2007 (somehow I doubt anyone was really convinced Jo Whiley was over 125 years old) and then a misunderstanding SIX YEARS later. Smurfmeister (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This unblock request has not been addressed in nearly three days now. The only blocks not addressed in that time are indefinite ones. Smurfmeister (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll admit that I have read your unblock request 4 times now over the last 3 days. I still find it massively lacking, as per WP:GAB and WP:EBUR. Your block isn't based on something that happened 6 years ago (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting the block was based on an old incident; I was simply making the point that there is a difference between a pattern and two incidences six years apart. If the unblock request is, as you put it, 'massively lacking', why not just decline it? There must be some reason you have yet to make a decision. Smurfmeister (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm giving you the opportunity to modify it, rather than outright decline...in case you hadn't noticed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One final time:

1. I revert Bbb23's change to Miranda (TV series) as it removed sources I had recently added, but NOT the unsourced content. I felt Bbb23's edit made things worse - either the sources should have stayed, or the text should have been removed altogether. I explained why I had reverted in the edit history, and went straight to Bbb23's talk page to explain to him personally. I couldn't because he had blocked me, without discussion, at that very moment.
2. Bbb23 has commented that he feels I should have discussed the change on the talk page rather than simply making it. Perhaps I should have done - but I can't turn the clock back. What I have tried to do is establish that it was done in good faith.
3. I have stated very publicly that should Bbb23, or indeed JuneGloom07 (the editor who deleted my original text, which began the chain leading to the original block) still feel the original text needs removing and that my sources are not valid, I will not question this. I would point out, however, that the main summary of the article only sources the BBC website, which does not refer to any of the information mentioned in said summary. Deleting my additions may lead to most of the article going the same way.
4. User Raintheone has become unnecessarily involved in a discussion on another user's talk page. All I am asking is that he allows that user to respond to me rather than doing so on her behalf. He wrongly flagged this request as an attempt to reopen a 'dispute'. I am not going to pretend that I am prepared to let this continue. If he continues to indulge in behaviour that I consider to be harassment, I will report it.

Smurfmeister (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Raintheone's involvement being unnecessary is a matter of opinion. You hold one opinion and I would think that Raintheone holds another. A difference of opinion does not constitute harassment. Accusations of harassment that lack substantiation, in a Wikipedia-policy sense, should be avoided. Such accusations usually result in the reporting party gaining an unlooked for and disappointing result. I'm also sure that Raintheone does not control JuneGloom's ability to participate in a discussion. Tiderolls 21:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The moment I was unblocked Raintheone started reporting my comments as personal attacks and insinuating that I was trying to restart a dispute. That is harrassment as far as I'm concerned. Smurfmeister (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I perceive behavior to be disruptive then I can only report it. You came off a block and immediately added comments to the two editors involved in the original content dispute. I did not wait for you to be unblocked - you came to me. Tide rolls left advice on my talk page and I followed it. Your addition could be considered as an act of gloating. Junegloom07 is on holiday and that may explain the lack of response. I have replied because my user name is continually mentioned here and accompanied with outlandish accusations. Surely it would be sensible to forget this scenario and move on.Rain the 1 23:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware JuneGloom is away - it says so on her talk page. I have no issue with her waiting to reply; my issue is that you shouldn't be doing it on her behalf. There are no 'outlandish accusations' here - you accused me of being abusive and have never explained or aplogised for this comment. Smurfmeister (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I’m just watching the episodes now and my original edits were 100% accurate. What a shame a bunch of bullies felt the need to have a go at me and gang up. Tragic. Smurfmeister (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lorraine Newman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Fixed now. Smurfmeister (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A decision really should have been made one way or the other on this. All I can assume is that administrators knew the block did not stand up to scrutiny, but none of them wanted to admit this - therefore they simply abstained from making a decision and let the block expire naturally. Disappointing. Users who have been blocked are expected to show contrition and understanding of what their error was - it would be nice if administrators could hold up their hands and say "we got this one wrong" too. Smurfmeister (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can assume that or you could believe what BWilkins told you. Bwilkins told you that he was waiting for you to modify your unblock request because it was seriously lacking. You had the conversation and never modified your unblock request, just continued to blame others for your block. GB fan 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was that lacking it would simply have been declined. Also, I didn't "blame others" for my block - if you read what I said you will see that I felt Bbb23 misinterpreted my actions, which is different to blaming him. Smurfmeister (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be inconsiderate to not permit editors who show potential to be useful the opportunity to "fix" their unblock request in order to be deemed acceptable. I waited for days, returning to this very page regularly, expecting you to do exactly what was handed to you. Every other admin was waiting for that too. The fact that you chose to not do it is not admins fault, it's yours. You are the one who let the block expire without action (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I re-outlined exactly why I was requesting the unblock - I cannot predict what you or any other admin will deem '"acceptable".Smurfmeister (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were advised to amend the original request, ensuring that you read WP:GAB, WP:NOTTHEM and reviewing some clear examples of unacceptable unblock requests before amending. Instead, you merely continued showing us why you should not be unblocked. I handed you all the tools you needed to do it...so, you do need to consider your request reviewed, but awaiting your action. Decline vs Accept is not black and white. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's moot now anyway. Smurfmeister (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways it's moot, but if you still think you're unique in having your block expire while the community awaits your action, then perhaps you think something still needs to be done? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing left to do - the block has expired. There's not much point in any retrospective action now. Smurfmeister (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the obviously wrong assumptions you state at the beginning of this section, retrospective would be wise - especially now that you're aware that you were the cause of the delays in Unblocking (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think describing me as 'obviously wrong' is somewhat imflamatory - but aside from that, I don't see what you think can be achieved from any further action. I am unblocked; therefore any further comments on my part will make no difference to my ability to edit. For an admin to re-block me there will need to be very solid evidence that it is necessary. As such it is best that we all move on. I am disappointed that no one has addressed the unfounded accusations of abusive behaviour against me, but such is life. Smurfmeister (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're wrong about a couple of things. First, a continuing discussion about your behavior can be productive even when you're not blocked as it might show that you have more insight as to why you were blocked and you were not unblocked. Second, reblocking you is generally easier, not harder, because the amount of evidence needed tends to be less. It's the cumulative effect. Let's assume an editor has never been blocked. Then they are blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. Their block expires and they go back to the article they previously edit warred on and start reverting. They make only one or two reverts. Many admins, including me, will reblock them because it's a continuation of their previous disruptive behavior - and this time they will be blocked for longer than the initial period.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have stated several times that I will not make further changes to the page I originally edited in good faith. I cannot see any value in continuing to pick over the carcass of an old argument. Smurfmeister (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Emmerdale characters (1998) 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:

• interested in her money. Guilt-ridden after an affair with Bernice's fiance Gavin ([Robert Beck]]), Stella flees the village leaving a video message attacking those who tried to benefit from her

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tom King (Emmerdale), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alex Carter and Peter Martin. 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) 09:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diane Sugden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Beck. 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) 08:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm Bubblepop8! It was good that you were saying 'don't add 15 it hasn't been confirmed he's leaving' but if this happens again and there is a reference to it please remember to read it because the ref is proof that Joseph is leaving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblepop8 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ref wasn't there when I asked people to stop adding an end date for him. Now that it's there, there's no problem. Please remember to check when a comment was added before questioning it on the user's talk page. Smurfmeister (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Zee zack". The reason given for Zee zack's block is: "Copyright violations".

• Blocking administrator: Diannaa (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Autoblock lifted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Take a Bow (Madonna song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lucky Star. 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) 09:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of EastEnders characters (2014), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Linda. 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) 09:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smurfmeister. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pond Life (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pet Rescue. 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) 11:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're playing at, but any more shit like this and you can consider yourself indefblocked. I don't care whether you've decided to start vandalising, your account has been compromised, or you think you're funny, but whichever it is we don't want you here. ‑ Iridescent 16:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'We'? Unless you're the monarch, you mean 'I'. Please don't speak for others. Smurfmeister (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On this, I speak for the Wikipedia community, and if you think otherwise start a RFC and see if you can get WP:NPA overturned. Any more shit like this and you'll be blocked from editing. ‑ Iridescent 11:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smurfmeister. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smurfmeister. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User:Bbb23. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Slp1 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User:Bbb23. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. --Yamla (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Practice what you preach. There was no ‘personal attack’. Smurfmeister (talk)

Two of us have told you otherwise. You are expected to refrain from comments like that in the future. --Yamla (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find your behaviour childish and abusive. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You were given a final warning regarding grave-dancing behaviour from Iridescent in 2017 and responded flippantly, just as you have done above. Are we to assume you simply cannot control yourself when you feel compelled to edit uncivilly?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you wading in? Smurfmeister (talk)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being a dick. repeated after a final warning..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can answer Ponyo's question inside an unblock template. or you can go away. I do not care which you choose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

If you think ‘being a dick’ is appropriate language, you shouldn’t be administering your own life, never mind Wikipedia. Sad little virgins ganging up together is one of the most pathetic sights I’ve ever seen. You need to get a grip, all of you.Smurfmeister (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not available for battles. See WP:GAB for procedures to request an unblock. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2021 (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.