User talk:Riverflat2021

Template:DragRaceProgressTable/UKVTW[edit]

Please stop edit-warring. Sherry Pie was disqualified from the show. That means she doesn't have a placement.

Baga and Juju were eliminated in the same round. Meaning that there is not an order to their final placement; they were eliminated simultaneously, as such things go. This has been the consensus on all series since S9.

If you continue to edit war, you will end up blocked from editing.

Daundelin ❁ 03:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: you should familiarize yourself with the rule on reverting changes and the other rule on reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daundelin (talk • contribs) 03:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this very clear to you. On the series page for UKVTW, Jujubee is listed above Baga and the chart should be the same. Baga and Jujubee were not ‘eliminated at the same time’. If it was a double sashay it would be different. But Baga was eliminated first and then Juju.

As for Sherry Pie. There were 13 contestants, therefore 13 placements. Whether Sherry was disqualified or not, she was still 4th/13 contestants.

And finally do not EVER come for me, get sarcastic with me or act like you know more than me, because from your talk page you’ve got a worse track record than Sherry Pie when it comes to getting blocked.Riverflat2021 (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot of attitude for someone who's about to be blocked for edit warring; I haven't 'come for you' nor have I been sarcastic. I am not acting like I know more than you, I simply do know more than you.

I suggest you tone that down. Baga and Juju were eliminated in the same round, which is the same as 'the same time.' That's how this works. And no, there were not 13 placements, you don't appear to understand how disqualification works. I suggest, again, that you read WP:3RR and WP:BRD because you are in violation of both. Daundelin ❁ 17:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect petal I don't think know an awful lot considering you've been blocked twice before now. As for your italics, They weren't eliminated at the same time. Whether it was the same round or not, Baga Chipz sashayed away before Jujubee, meaning Jujubee should be before Baga in the order. If in your opinion the order doesn't matter as it was the same time anyway, perhaps you should WP:STOP edit warring. A PLACE in a competition means the order they left, Sherry finished 4th/13, just because he's a dirty predator doesn't mean he didn't place.Riverflat2021 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be engaging with you any further. See below. Daundelin ❁ 18:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very wise, you don’t want another block on your Wikipedia CV.Riverflat2021 (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Daundelin ❁ 18:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked you for disruptive editing, including edit-warring, personal attacks, and failure to collaborate. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights and how to request an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Block?[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).

Riverflat2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

An indefinite block is ridiculous for twice reverting incorrect edits is quite excessive. I gave perfectly clear and acceptable reasons for why I'd made the edits and I don’t think referencing someone’s block history counts as a personal attack. The user who reported me was involved in edit warring also and received no repurcussions, it seems my account's age is the only reason I have been the one to face an indefinite block. I'd appreciate if this block could be reviewed by someone more experienced. Thank you.

Decline reason:

If this was only about two edits, you might be correct, but this is about a general pattern of behavior and an attitude problem. I think the block is necessary and was correctly made to prevent those things, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2022 (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.

Completely disagree, Perhaps my attitude was a little excessive, but so was the other editor who began edit warring and has faced 0 repurcussions. Can you re review this please. User:331dot as I think an indefinite block for reverting edits is excessive.Riverflat2021 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not modify an already declined unblock request. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may make a brand new request for someone else to review; the old one must remain until the block is removed per WP:BLANKING. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help you[edit]

When you are blocked from editing Wikipedia, admins want to see two things:

an acknowledgement of what you did and why it was wrong/against policy
a commitment to not do those things again

In this case, the cited reasons for your block were:

edit warring
personal attacks
refusal to work collaboratively

So, if you want to be unblocked, you need to demonstrate that you understand how you were edit warring (and why "someone else did it" is neither an excuse nor accurate here), what your personal attacks were (and why "being a little excessive" isn't a defence), and how you were not collaborative. Couple those with a sincere undertaking to not do them again, and it is highly likely that an admin will unblock you.

I get it. You're passionate about Drag Race. As a middle-aged queer man, who never thought he'd grow up to see this kind of queer content on TV, so am I. The important thing to remember with Wikipedia, though, is that passion doesn't really matter; if you're unable to make your passion subordinate to Wikipedia policies and principles, then perhaps this isn't a subject area for you. And that's okay. There are areas I don't bother touching because I'm too close to the subject matter to look at them objectively.

Anyway, if you want to get unblocked, just do as I wrote above: admit your fault, promise never to do it again, and in all likelihood an admin will unblock you. Daundelin ❁ 02:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:ZestyLemonz per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]