32430.23432.4B24
September 2017
edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cenk Uygur. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been 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. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, was reverting the removal of content which was unwarranted.
- No you weren't. There is no "U.Sg.". I will have a look at your category edits. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
That was a typo.
- Good. Now start discussing these denials, or lack thereof, on talk page, lest you be blocked for disruption/edit warring. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Regardless, I think it necessary to state that there is no malicious intent, trying to prevent edit warring in-fact.
- You can state that, but this isn't preventing anything. Taking text out and saying "it's in the category" isn't an article improvement. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Well it isn't very wel formulated and most "Good Articles" do not include small details in a whole new sentence in the introductory paragraph. It already has a section too.
- Was that on User talk:Dasfaf a typo too? Drmies (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Dude you got a lot of accounts. Hold on; I'll be right back. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean? That isn't my account. I found it on your user page.
- (Redacted)? Da's gezellig. What you just said makes no sense. This makes no sense. What is clear is that you are genocide editing all over the project, and I am going to put a stop to that. If there's something you want to talk about, you can do so from your main account--that is, the first one I know of. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
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.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Not sure what you are getting at here? If you intend to make wikipedia a better place I would suggest talking about edits rather then reverting and looking up ip adresses.
- Main account, please. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)