User talk:Falconfly

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uraeus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Your recent editing history at Christian terrorism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antediluvian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sumerian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Your recent editing history at Synapsid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Anaxial (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Mars (mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Etruscan and Maris

Proto-Indo-European mythology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Taran

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Mars (mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Etruscan and Maris

Italic languages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lusitanian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuvuuia (talk • contribs) 21:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Making legal threats is a bannable offense. Retract it now. --Tarage (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

See my response, @User:Tarage

Already seeking a block for NLT. You did this to yourself. --Tarage (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

And screencapped. YOU did this to yourself <3

Blocked

Hi. As noted in the ANI report, you have repeatedly made legal threats on Commons,[1] and have as a result been blocked indefinitely there.[2] Consequently, I assume that you know the Wikimedia foundations view of legal threats, as laid out here. Moreover, you have been warned and asked to withdraw them,[3] with no effect. You have been blocked indefinitely for making legal threats on Wikipedia, as well as for persistent personal attacks. 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. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC).

Thank you. {{unblock|Sent an email and messages on Wikimedia and Wikipedia pages explaining, hopefully you'll address this soon.}}

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #23247 was submitted on Nov 13, 2018 22:13:28. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I additionally request that the offending users are dealt with as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talk • contribs) 22:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

All of the offending users have been dealt with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Under email suggestions, template uploaded with alterations:

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Sent an email and messages on Wikimedia and Wikipedia pages explaining, hopefully you'll address this soon.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2018 (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.

You seem to have a mistaken belief that somehow an e-mail to anyone is going to get you unblocked. You won't be until you retract the legal threat. Period. It's that simple. --Tarage (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• ^
• |

Example of spitefulness my detractors display. I alone am by default being slighted here, but since you insist further:

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

reason=

• Not necessary. I am simply doing my contributions, when people outright censor me entirely out of spite (see above example to see how extensive TOS breaking harassment goes unpunished). Additionally users on administrator notice page have admitted outright personal investment in my ban and openly endorse abuse here; this goes beyond incompetence in terms of the wiki's image.
• I understand the charges and I only agree with legal threats. I have abundantly demonstrated I am willing to take issues to talk pages (i.e. recent Deinonychus talk page edits; met with personal attacks, mind you).

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=reason= '' * Not necessary. I am simply doing my contributions, when people outright censor me entirely out of spite (see above example to see how extensive TOS breaking harassment goes unpunished). Additionally users on administrator notice page have admitted outright '''personal investment''' in my ban and openly endorse abuse here; this goes beyond incompetence in terms of the wiki's image. * I understand the charges and I only agree with legal threats. I have abundantly demonstrated I am willing to take issues to talk pages (i.e. recent Deinonychus talk page edits; '''met with personal attacks''', mind you).'' |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=reason= '' * Not necessary. I am simply doing my contributions, when people outright censor me entirely out of spite (see above example to see how extensive TOS breaking harassment goes unpunished). Additionally users on administrator notice page have admitted outright '''personal investment''' in my ban and openly endorse abuse here; this goes beyond incompetence in terms of the wiki's image. * I understand the charges and I only agree with legal threats. I have abundantly demonstrated I am willing to take issues to talk pages (i.e. recent Deinonychus talk page edits; '''met with personal attacks''', mind you).'' |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=reason= '' * Not necessary. I am simply doing my contributions, when people outright censor me entirely out of spite (see above example to see how extensive TOS breaking harassment goes unpunished). Additionally users on administrator notice page have admitted outright '''personal investment''' in my ban and openly endorse abuse here; this goes beyond incompetence in terms of the wiki's image. * I understand the charges and I only agree with legal threats. I have abundantly demonstrated I am willing to take issues to talk pages (i.e. recent Deinonychus talk page edits; '''met with personal attacks''', mind you).'' |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

1. You have no free speech here. This is a private website. You can be removed at any time.

2. So long as you have a legal threat open, you cannot edit. This is done to defend Wikipedia. You CANNOT have an open legal complaint and be unblocked. PERIOD. This is not negotiable for anyone. Not you, not me, not Jimmy. Until you retract it, you will be blocked.

3. You're about to lose your talk page access which will make getting unblocked that much harder. I suggest, one last time, that you stop and retract it. --Tarage (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• ^
• |

See continuous harassment over there; keywords including "no free speech" and outright intimidation.

One example of taking a discussion to the talk page - which is after being called out for edit warring - does not clear your slate. Even past the legal threats, you have repeatedly demonstrated violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding original research and synthesis, neutral point-of-view/conflicts of interest, edit warring, civility, and sockpuppeting over a period of almost three years. None of this you have even addressed, let alone refuted. Accusing everyone who confronts you of harassment and spite is not helping your case. Shuvuuia (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, bold of you to call that "intimidation" after you heaved a legal threat at me. Shuvuuia (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Considering you're doing just that - and after edit warring in spite of my explanations, making you a hypocrite of the highest caliber no less - I see my point is only strengthened. Your actions are pretty much a non-stop of personal bias and strife in spite of multiple pages of discussions on various edits.

Alright, I give up. Your talk page access will be revoked soon enough so you can scream into the void all you like, no one will hear. --Tarage (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

And I have screencapped your pathetic, desperate bravado regardless.

...What does that even mean? You took a screenshot. Congratulations? What do you think is going to happen? --Tarage (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You tell me, given how desperate you are to intimidate.

What happens next is you lose your ability to edit this page, much like what happened at the commons. Do you think anything else is going to happen? What do you honestly think a screenshot is going to accomplish? --Tarage (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, you tell me. You sure seem nervous at the prospect, up to incriminating yourself unnecessarily...