User talk:Deloop82

April 2018[edit]

Hello there. Your talk page seems to indicate that you've received many warnings and a block in regards to unsourced/disruptive genre changing in films. Please know that the warnings/blocks would equally apply to video games as well. In general, please read WP:GENREWARRIOR - Wikipedia frowns upon people who just go around altering genre according to their personal opinions. Please stop doing this. I'd recommend you not get bogged down in genre-fiddling, but if you are, at least provide a source for your genre additions. And in general, there's nothing wrong with calling a fighting game a fighting game. That's much more helpful than something generic like "action", which doesn't tell the reader much.

Anyways, please keep this in mind, as to avoid any further blocks for this sort of activity. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: Categories also apply. Smash Bros as a martial arts game? That's a terrible call on multiple levels. I'm losing patience here - you're making a lot of bad decisions that require others to clean up after you. Anymore unsourced/bad call genre/category additions and you're going to be blocked from editing again. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at The Usual Suspects. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Goodfellas. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 11:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. DrKay (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2018 (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).

Deloop82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I deserve a second chance after many helpful contributions Deloop82 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yamla (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2018 (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.

For any further unblock requests, please note that I just blocked Jamesdenn (talk · contribs) as a WP:DUCK sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

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).

Deloop82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have only contributed for usefulness in my socks, the adventure game genre is not related to the literary adventure genre, and Jurasic Pak is a sci-fi action novel

Decline reason:

You - the person behind this account - are blocked from editing Wikipedia, and this block is for every account, registered or anonymous alike. You can't claim being a good contributor while continuing to break our rules, as you can see there is already a call for a complete ban below. Max Semenik (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2018 (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 does not address your violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. Nor does it address your violations of WP:BLP on this account. Or, for that matter, your violations of WP:BLP on your other accounts, too. It's manifestly untrue that you have "only contributed for usefulness". --Yamla (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

Note that this user has engaged in block evasion as of August, 2018, and is clearly not acting in good faith. Please consider banning them under WP:3X. --Yamla (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New chance[edit]

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).

Deloop82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I deserve a new chance Deloop82 (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2018 (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.

There's zero chance of this unblock request being granted. If you are just wasting our time, I may as well revoke talk page access. I'll refrain from doing so for one hour, though, to give you a chance to remove or significantly alter that unblock request. Also note that you appear to be banned under WP:CBAN, so need to specifically go through the WP:UNBAN process. --Yamla (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you have chosen not to do this, as you've been evading your block recently, and as you are clearly just wasting our time, I have revoked talk page access. This leaves you with WP:UTRS. I strongly recommend you wait at least six months before availing yourself of that, then apply under WP:SO. You'll need to address your very long history of abusive edits and your numerous violations of policy. Note also that you are banned, not blocked. Saying, "I deserve a new chance" is just wasting our time. --Yamla (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]