User talk:Solaire the knight

4771:. : An edit warring is when users revert other people's edits, especially repeatedly, rather than trying to reach consensus within the project's rules (this is objectively bad and prohibited because edit warrning destroys constructive work on the article and turns it into battlefield between users). My actions were rightly defined as a edit warring, because instead of opening a topic in the discussion of the page and showing reasonedly, with authoritative sources, why I think my edits are correct and reaching consensus through mutual discussion, I simply canceled the edits of my opponents and appealed to them " morality and justice." In the future, If my edit is reverted, then I will refrain from such actions as destructive and create a thematic thread on the talk page to discuss the conflict that has arisen and how it can be resolved within the framework of the project rules. Once the discussion is over, I will need to ask a neutral administrator to summarize it in order to approve consensus and avoid new conflict due to different views on the outcome of the discussion. : A reliable source is an authoritative source who and meets Knowledge (XXG)'s requirements for authoritative resources and can confirm the information I add. For example, if I want to add a claim that a scene from a show has become a meme, I need a source that directly describes this meme and meets Knowledge (XXG)'s requirements for authoritative sources on a given topic. If other users express doubts about this, then I should also initially create a topic on the discussion page, where convincingly demonstrate authority of the source or provide new authoritative sources, instead of using any emotional reverts. This can be done by showing that the source is considered authoritative in its field (for example, it is widely quoted and recognized as authoritative by other objectively authoritative sources), is not in the database of prohibited sources on Knowledge (XXG) itself, and is not engaged in the dissemination of unauthoritative or biased information such as conspiracy theories, etc. : I accept your reproach. Instead of drawing conclusions from the warnings of administrators and other users, and correcting any identified problems in my actions, I simply began to argue and complain about other users, although the topic of discussion should have been my behavior, and not transferring blame to other users or or another links to “justice and morality.” Now I understand that in such situations I should have at least adjusted my behavior and discussed in a polite and reasonable tone how I could correct this in the future. As a last resort, consult with familiar users. But definitely don’t taking this as an attack or a challenge against me. To sum up the above, I ask you to unblock me by demonstrating that I recognize and understand the problems voiced and leading to my blocking. In the future, I promise to resolve any conflicts through constructive dialogue with authoritative sources within the rules on the talk page, avoid any edit wars, and take warnings as an opportunity to stop and correct problems in my actions instead of reacting hostilely to them. I hope that I have adequately answered the questions asked of me and can expect the block to be lifted. But of course, if any additional questions arise for me, I can always answer them. 4397:

understand the reasons for my blocking, and I want to say that regardless of the real or imaginary attitude towards me, this does not negate the fact that I participated in outright edit wars and studied the differences in the rules between my and the English section only after the fact. I admit that I was driven by some resentment due to the actions of opponents, but in the end I myself was to blame for this outcome, as I got involved in a senseless edit war despite the warning and built the entire argument on complaints about the behavior of opponents instead of making some contribution to the solution of the issue itself. No one was obligated to coddle me, especially when past experience should already have taught me that my thinking or direct actions were could break the rules and I had to think especially hard before each action. I also had to study the rules in more detail and behave in accordance with them, instead of building the whole argument on trying to appeal to the conscience and morality of my opponents or observers of the disputes I started. Accordingly, I also had to study the rules regarding sources and discuss this with my opponents before starting an edit war or replacing it with accusations of conflict and hostility against opponent. I ask to be unblocked, giving me a second chance to contribute more consciously and carefully, as well as to learn the rules better through communication with more experienced users or advice on the forums intended for this. I also promise to drop my moralistic pattern of behavior, henceforth promising to communicate in a civilized and rule-based manner, rather than treating the wiki forums and talk pages as a public court and a place to seek "justice".

3373:(not to mention that half of the addresses were blocked in other articles due to various political violations)? All this time he uses the same language, ignoring the regular reversals of his edits, including the direct warning I left on his talk page. And this version is far from "my favorite", this text was added by another user during a dispute with me. But as it turned out, I was too stupid and decided that you should not talk to an anonymous person who monotonously deletes information with sources without any reference to the rules. I just can't promise you anything because your politics are so mood-driven that I could get banned for rolling back vandalism, or being banned for something that, in a past conflict, on the contrary, served as a reason for saving others from a ban. How do you explain that the same admin bans me despite my opponent being the first one to break the 3 undo rules, but in the last conflict, being the first one to break that rule serves as an excuse for not punishing my opponents? You can literally read it above on this same page. In general, I can promise you something only if you explain to me how the monotonous, unsupported by arguments for several months, removal of information with sources cannot be considered vandalism (Which is especially intriguing to me, given your banner for removing vandalism). 3427:

don't need to instantly revert a persistent vandal, and in fact, instantly reverting may motivate them to be more persistent than if you let it be and let them lose interest. Knowledge (XXG) wasn't built in a day, and it won't be destroyed in a day either. If you're finding yourself get heated over anything wiki-related at all (vandalism, content dispute, whatever), it's fine to just step away for a time and come back to it when you're feeling calmer, clearer, and better. Yesterday's problems will feel a lot less urgent and a lot more insignificant with time. Best,

3160:

after the warning), then Knowledge (XXG) will simply fall apart. Did you even see his edits? They have literally removed source-corroborated criticism of the show's English voice acting, claiming it has nothing to do with the show. I require the total to be reviewed by another administrator. Moreover, he was the first to break the rules of three cancellations. Last time, my opponent escaped any punishment by pointing out that I broke this rule earlier. Why am I banned now? All the rules here are respected depending on the mood?

3049: 2533: 2231: 3443:

studied my request, since no one even mentioned it, not the very fact that an anonymous person for some reason was blocked from discussing a couple of political articles (from which I concluded that they are deleting information due to a conflict interests). But anyway, thanks for the kind words. I finally caught up with ongoing and calmly rest these two weeks, not worrying that something that I don’t even suspect can be added to the article.

489:" Aggressive behaviors " - I in response to a request from the secondary neutral lead sources , began to read a speech about " the lies of the Russian government " ? If you were to look at the discussion page , then you would do well to see the progress consensus when my direct questions are ignored. Even you can bet that if the "threat template nomination " lost and do not need to bother , they generally will not respond to my comments. 2455: 2329: 685: 377: 3998: 2604:

messages for the appearance of participation in the discussion? For example, the last user is trying to look neutral, while his page literally talks about ideological involvement. And you only block me, completely ignoring any action on their part. I would like to try to reach a consensus, but these users literally make it impossible and do not even hide it. And the admins are doing nothing to change that.

3621: 3593: 3017: 2199: 4687: 1384: 2007: 1919: 1561: 1128: 983: 4311: 4072: 3808: 3220: 2875: 1208: 635: 3652: 1646: 559: 220: 2094: 4205: 1055: 740: 2991:

information with sources, arguing that the reaction to the localization of the show outside of Japan supposedly had nothing to do with the show. And he wrote some kind of justification, very general only after the 4th rollback. It's not even just an edit war, it's politically motivated vandalism, given what page and why this anime has been banned in the past.

907: 2683:(they began to participate in the discussion only after I drew attention to this. It is also obviously prohibited. Why were the measures imposed only on me? I'm obviously not asking you to deal with this "morally" or to ignore my transgressions. But why do THEIR violations remain without any reaction, despite their obvious intentions? 414:) has been reported. It seems that he sits on specific articles and initiates Edit-Wars. He's been reported as he attempted to threaten myself as well as another user, making various accusations towards us as well. Lastly, he repeatedly erases properly cited sources and demands that you ask his permission to edit. 4849:

for review is that it can help move the process along quicker as more individuals (not just administrators) can review the history of your block and your appeal. Note, though, that if the majority of editors believe that your appeal should be declined, you will be considered community banned and will

3690:

My harassing? And when a user intervenes in my conflict, which does not concern him in any way and achieves my blocking, complicating the conflict several times, is this not harassing? Please study user behavior carefully. This is the second time he has intervened in my conflicts with other users and

3457:

Yeah I saw your request at RFPP after looking into it. It's borderline and some admins might have granted it and some might not have. Look for times when it's multiple IPs (one person hopping to different IPs, or just multiple people) making trouble. That's usually enough to get a request through. At

2990:

Reasons? Seriously? Are you making fun of me? Not to mention the fact that you are grossly distorting my argument, turning it into a scarecrow. The user for several days under different ips deleted important and nothing violating information with dry "irrelevant information", and then began to delete

2429:

Again, you yourself have seen how my opponents do not care about this at all and are even ready to use provocateurs to put out an uncomfortable conflict. I mean, the last user is so arrogant that he is literally trying to portray a neutral viewer of the conflict while having a controversial slogan on

4502:

I apologize for the delay of almost a year, I had difficult life circumstances. I wanted to ask if my opportunity to reasonably ask for an unlocking in accordance with the rules and conditions you specified is still relevant? If yes, then I will try to prepare a request according to the requirements

4127:

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

3921:

who also takes some time to react to a declaration of love. I'm not sure if Sakura's previous experiences when dealing with love constitute a major thing in her character, but it sometimes seems that Toya saw it coming before the climax when Yukito asks him why does he keep calling Syaoran a brat or

3859:

3747:

I only discuss Knowledge (XXG) matters by email when there is a compelling need for privacy. That is not the case here. Knowledge (XXG) is built on transparency and review of almost all disputes by any editor. If by "rules", you mean policies and guidelines, then please be aware that all editors are

3493:

It got reverted shortly thereafter. I think overall you're being too 'reactive', in the sense that you're reacting to every edit, every reply, every single thing as soon as it happens. You could stand to be a little less responsive and let others comment or edit or revert. Turn off notifications for

3426:

And one more thing from an oldhead who's been around the block on Knowledge (XXG) for a long-ass time: it's ok if the article is wrong for a little while. In the grand scheme of history, it's not a big deal that something is missing or incorrect about an article for a few hours due to vandalism. You

3159:

It was literally vandalism. Anonymous, without good reason, deleted information supported by sources, ignoring warnings or comments. If we discuss every vandal edit with an anonymous person who refuses to discuss it (be sure he will continue this after the end of the block. He already continued this

2930:

2305:

What consensus are you talking about? My opponents directly participated in the edit war, only formally participating in the discussion and only after I paid attention to it. Moreover, the new user obviously took part in this to provoke me into further kickbacks and to get the other two users out of

1315:

That IP belongs to a GTHost webhost, and is blocked across all Wikimedia projects. The block was made last November 19th, and you have edited successfully between now and then- if something about the circumstances under which you edit has changed(such as your location), changing it back should work

1096:

template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons

4484:

Thanks for the detailed answer. Since the continuation requires a more detailed and thoughtful answer, I will take some time to think it over and give a more reasonable and informed answer (since I am indefinitely blocked, I understand that I have enough time to answer), but I want to let you know,

4151:

What is obvious to you is not necessarily so to others. Also, refrain from further provoking conflict. You literally deny the existence of a request for sources, without even giving me the opportunity to put the request. And now you're trying to intimidate me so I can't question your actions. It is

3956:

Seems to be a common trend in Clamp works. While Subaru at first admits he has a crush for a girl, he later realizes he fell for Seishiro. In X, Fuma's mother was actually in love with Kamui's mother but due to certain traditions they had to end with different people. In xxxHolic, at first Watanuki

3916:

I have Clamp no Kiseki but on Spanish so it's hard to reword it. Clamp revisits every series in these book while highlighting the biggest events. When it comes to Sakura's relationship with Syaoran. It basicaly seems to say that after Syaoran confesses Sakura his feelings, she feels kinda tormented

3763:

Please don't explain every little thing about the rules to me, like I said, I've been on wikipedia since the late 00s, I'm familiar with it. I sent you an email because I want to communicate more freely, without being forced to have a formal conversation and without scrutinizing my messages for new

3305:

I was mistakenly banned for violating the rules of 3 rollbacks when I rolled back the vandal edits of an anonymous person deleting text with sources without any clear argument. Moreover, the user and the admin who complained about me are the only ones who found my edits erroneous, and I’m even more

2853:

I do not fight strictly for this wording. I do not like the approach itself, when people try to either remove or minimize inconvenient information in any way. Especially when, until 2014 (does it surprise you why they insist on the sources after the start of the war?), it was one of the most famous

2682:

You literally don't see a single justification for my edit warning on my part. I even directly wrote that I am aware of this. At the same time, my opponents also participated in this edit war in the same way, and one quite openly provoked me to participate in it in order to get my block more likely

2584:

Well... a partial block was an attempt to get you to discuss and reach consensus and stop reverting... given you are continuing to disrupt ANEW, it clearly failed. So, you're now completely blocked for 3 days. I highly suggest dropping the battleground mentality or you are likely to find yourself

2356:

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee.

1361:

But how could this happen? Using a proxy from under an official account simply does not make sense, and since the site was not blocked in my country, I have no reason to use them in general. Yes, I edited some articles through an unofficial wiki application, but how could this affect the address in

4423:

This request starts to address the edit warring, but more specific information is needed to determine that you understand what you did wrong. In future unblock requests, please describe what edit warring is, why your actions were considered edit warring, and what you will do in the future to avoid

3575:

I did this because you literally covered for the vandal and even got me banned after that, just because you wanted to keep their edits. You did not participate in the discussion, nor did you try to provide your version, you just complained to the administrator about me. Even portraying me as the

3556:

in a short period of time of "persistent obsessive attempts to accuse me of an edit war", targeted harassment, protecting vandals, having a conflict of interest and a "negative attitude towards information". You have done this on this page, 3RR-noticeboard, my talk page, G-Witch talk page, and the

4396:

Since the administrator who blocked me offered to carry out a similar procedure, I will try, I apologize in advance if, out of inexperience, I made some mistakes in filling out the template. Also please forgive me for any mistakes or misunderstandings as English is not my native language. I fully

3893:

I found it suspicious to try to remove even the hidden text bypassing the discussion on the talk page, but keeping it in the article all the time during a potentially long and tedious argument just seems pointless. In any case, while the user is clearly trying to use wikipedia for justice, I find

2975:

I think you are both edit-warring, but the other editor did provide reasons in the edit summaries. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid

2837:

I am replying here to your emails as I do not reply to emails from Knowledge (XXG) editors from my own account except in exceptional circumstances. To get consensus in the talk page, you need to give persuasive evidence, sources for your edits, and be civil. The UPA did not exist in the 1920s, so

2806:

That is, he literally justified the continuation of the edit warning by the fact that he considered himself right (not to mention you keep passing off one side's opinion as consensus just because of the larger number of users involved, or keep calling it stable just because it didn't have an edit

3442:

Hi, thanks for the reply! I'm just quite upset that I previously asked to protect the page from anonymous edits because of this, but I was told "this is not a problem, warn the anonymous person and write to the admins if he continues." But in the end, I hurt myself. And it seems that no one even

4886:

The editors reviewing your block may have questions for you or want clarification. If this happens, you can reply here on your talk page and someone will move your reply over to the noticeboard on your behalf. Note that you don't have to take this route if you'd rather just wait for an admin to

3784:

Aside from how you behave, your actions on reverting edits here and there and thinking you better know about the anime itself makes me thing you're being more than uncivil. I don't give a serious F on how you view some show's revealing plotlines but if you still kept on trying to interfere with

2765:

I am blocked there because I spoke rudely to a user whose regular NPOV and rudeness were covered by a number of administrators due to ideological consent. What one of them told me almost directly (and was even called out by a number of other admins and users for this revelation). This is first.

2729:

Yes, because a third user appeared in the article, both provoking me into further violations and saving these two from crossing this line. It's literally right in front of eyes and they don't even try to hide it. Don't you see this? I do not believe that the most primitive strategy of provoking

2603:

Excuse me, I'll ask you again what kind of mentality should I have when users literally recruit friends to provoke me into new violations, abuse their numbers to pass off their position as a community consensus, or directly ignore the entire list of sources on the talk page, just leaving formal

4253:

I just don't know what to do anymore. I do not consider myself a saint or an innocent victim of circumstances, but I have a feeling that anything I say is instantly interpreted against me, even if I am ready to meet and admit mistakes on my part. There was a mentoring mechanism in the Russian

3971:

This intrigues me even more in the context that their mainstream works like Kobato have a rather wholesome but straight relationship at the center. But yes, you can also find the motif of repeating gay affection generations later in CCS when Tomoyo actually serves as a mirror of her mother's

3332:. You and the IP editor disagreed over content and you both edit warred to keep your favorite versions, and you're both blocked (not banned) for a short period. You can very easily get unblocked by showing you understand our policies about edit warring and committing to not doing it again. 3192:

And you never answered me why last time my opponents avoided any punishment, saying that their cancellations do not count because "he started it first", but now I am literally banned despite the fact that anonymous is waging this war edits with the authors of the article for several months?

2854:

contexts for the use of the term and was the reason why many people opposed its popularization. I won’t even talk about the opponents’ attempts to pass off their numerical superiority as the opinion of the majority and the consensus of the community, this has been discussed many times.

1844:

What are you talking about? You were directly told that reviews can be used as opinions on content, but they cannot be used like Word of God. For example, you may well write about yuri bait in Saki based on reviews, but use that as a source for the "they're all lesbians" statement, no.

4871:

I see, thanks for the clarification. Well, I agree anyway. I have no other options, as far as I understand your explanation of my situation. And if I understand correctly, during this time I do not need to give any comments, unless the administrators ask me to comment on some issue?

995:

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.

4086:; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 3818:; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 2889:; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 4038:

Do you think that I don't know the rules just because I used one source of dubious authority? I literally helped write a section in this same article based on sources earlier. But returning to our topic, how do you propose to confirm the existence of memes, if not through KYM?

4618:

What? I literally mentioned that I understand this part of the rule and don't protest my block or claim that I was blocked for no reason anyewhere. I just asked you to clarify if you also meant the part of Boomerng about the observers, stop this hostility in the end, please.

3479:. If that's not vandalism, not even borderline vandalism, I don't even know what is. But thanks for the friendly advice, I'm just not going to get involved. If the community is intentionally punishing for trying to prevent systematic vandalism, then I'll just stop doing it. 1783:

You must remember that Knowledge (XXG) is not a battlefield or author's blog of any of the participants. If the information does not correspond to reality and simply broadcasts someone's pov, then it cannot remain in the project just because its very personal for you

4517:

Since this happened over a year ago, an unblock request would be fine to pursue to edit Knowledge (XXG) again. Please read the instructions I left in the decline. Your unblock request should address each one, and open a new unblock request below when you are ready.

617:

You have failed to translate arrows with this in the discussion , and you decide to copy it here in isolation from the context of these phrases taken out I'm more and more amazed by your efforts to torpedo discussion or attempts to tarnish the perception of me :)

4643:

It may be as a result of your English skills, as you indicated, but it should be noted that referring to editors with whom you disagree as "opponents" isn't appropriate. No one is each others' opponent here; we're all trying to build an encyclopedia. And

3937:

I'm starting to envy Sailor Moon's fandom in the sense that their author quite often and openly comments on fan headcanons and answers questions. Although she still seems to be ignoring attempts to turn all the characters into Haruka and Michiru lol.

4434:

As for the warnings, you will need to address how you will address editor concerns in the future to ensure that your editing improves. With the conversation below and the fact that warnings did not seem to change your behaviour, I think there is a

4599:

What don't you understand? You reported someone for behavior you didn't like, but then exhibited behavior that the community didn't like, and got blocked for it. That's a boomerang. Part of the behavior you show that the community doesn't like is

3177:

I find the idea extremely ludicrous that I should appeal the block when I rolled back anonymous vandalism and prior to your action, I was told that I should apply for an anonymous block when I asked to protect an article from anonymous edits.

503:

You're not getting the point: it doesn't matter how the talk page discussion is going. If you make a change and it is reverted, you need to reach consensus on the talk page before changing it again. That's the way WP works. Is it clear now?

3409:.) If anyone else agrees with you, then they can also revert and therefore force the other person to hit 3RR first. In this case, the text was developed in collaboration so there's nothing wrong with putting a message on the talk page and 2176:

Only if this consensus is not one-sided. At the moment, I'm the only one who wrote about this on the talk page, while other participants call it a POV violation to mention the strong association of the slogan with the Ukrainian far right.

769: 667:

I understand that you are now my every edit will be turned into a circus and unwind before the war edits and blocking threats to completely remove me from the article ? Well then, I really should write about your actions administrators

4662:

Yes you are right. But I just don’t know with what word I could single out people who occupied the side opposing me in this or that dispute or conflict. Perhaps "people who disagree with me", but it sounds too cumbersome and official.

3306:

than sure that after leaving the blocking, the anonymous person will continue to monotonously delete information. (other authors of the article removed the anonymous edits in the same way and even added sources to the text he removed)

2730:

opponents to edit wars has been known and banned in the Russian Knowledge (XXG) for many years, but is completely unknown in the more strictly and bureaucratic English Knowledge (XXG). Hell, the original essay about this appeared

2636:

were transferred to the discussion itself? Just don't tell me that there was nothing provocative in this remark and the user did not even expect to provoke an emotional reaction from me. Although I think it's useless to ask after

775: 4830:

Hello, thanks for your answer! Last time the answer was a few days later, so I was already starting to worry a little. I'm not against it in principle, but will this have any significant differences from the standard procedure?

3512:

You are not the first person to tell me this. I just have quite a few sadly negative experiences with issues that were either stubbornly ignored because no one was paying attention, or because no one wanted to deal with it.

4419:

You were blocked for multiple reasons: edit warring, adding unsourced content and refusing to get to the point (clarified at the ANI by ScottishFinnishRadish that this is referring to not heeding the previous warnings).

3405:, even if you think you are correct. (Also note that accusing or implying that the person you are multi-reverting is 'vandalism' and it is determined not to be, then that's worse for you because it could be considered 2807:

that bothered you)? Seriously, from now on it's hard for me to understand if you are trying to troll me in the most brazen way or just so hypocritical that you do not realize how you directly admit to illegal actions.

2052: 1962: 1604: 1171: 1023: 316:

Two participants roll back my edits without any arguments , but the blame for the war edits why I. And it is a language profile that everyone in the Russian Knowledge (XXG) taken as an example . Apparently nothing

452:

And that I still left to do , if the opponents are just walking in a circle on the talk page , delaying the time passing by quietly removed the template , refusing to lead sources are referenced at the rollback ?

4053:

If you knew the rules you wouldn't be edit warring to return obviously bad sources (or unsourced content, as it was after your latest edit). Find a source that actually meets guidelines or leave it out entirely.

1859:

Uh huh. Whatever, fix the page yourself, man. I don't want any part of it. I only added one word in my comment to clarify what I was saying. That's it. Please, do not try and involve me in this topic again.

782:

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

844:

I is not going to start war, I'm just interested in the logic of the people who are calling block me without discussions, and then and then asked resentfully " not to leave comments on their talk page ".

2357:

When editing a contentious topic, Knowledge (XXG)’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Knowledge (XXG) administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

4585:

I understood which rule you were referring to, I didn't understand which part of it you meant. I was indeed blocked as the requester, but you seemed to be referring to the discussion format as well.

2036:. 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 1946:. 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 1588:. 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 1155:. 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 1007:. 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 3917:

about how she should react so the most of the first series' final volume involves Sakura getting confidence from all the relationships she has. It's kinda similar to what Clamp no Kiseki says about

3549:. I understand that you were upset by the edit warring report and subsequent block, and didn't mention it or take any action then. I must now, however, as you are still continuing that behaviour. 4424:

this mistake again. Considering that you have been warned multiple times about this, you will need to give a very good explanation of what you will do in the future to avoid this behaviour.

532:

Doesn't matter: you either provide a proposal and convince other editors, as for admin intervention, or the article stays as it is. Your call. Attacking other users won't make a difference.

2021: 1932: 1574: 1141: 2838:

claiming the UPA used the symbol in the 1920s was never going to get a source. That it was used by the OUN was a stronger case, and so this is now in the lead, with a source in the body.

3419:

the other participants to make them aware of the issue. Since this appears to be a case of persistent vandalism over the course of months from unregistered users, you could also make a

197:. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! 2388:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics

744: 22: 4900:

Thanks again for your clarification, I'm fine with this. I agree to your proposal, since it will speed up the issue and bring some clarity, which seems better than endless waiting.

3957:

is only interested in Himawari but later chapters imply some sort intimate relationship with Domeki who marries Kohane, a girl in love with Watanuki. So yeah, no idea what to write.

4767:

After additional consultations and conversations with administrators, I decided to submit an additional request, answering the necessary questions asked of me by the administrator

3494:

certain things, check your watchlist a little less. Focus on things that you enjoy, with respect to improving the encyclopedia, instead of getting caught up in the rat race. Best,

3021: 2203: 879:, I probably also will remove "trash" from my page too :) The only regret that I accidentally interfere you in our conflict. I am sorry to bother you. PS Sorry for my ugly english 389: 381: 2397: 3922:

something like that. Eriol's knowledge about a relationship is kinda ambiguous as he instead believed Sakura would end with Yukito so yeah I'm also confused. Hope this helps.

3660: 3625: 3597: 2766:

Secondly, since you continue to use my talk page to further provoke me into further conflict, I will remove any of your new remarks here as trolling. Thank you and goodbye.

689: 518:

That is, you roll back any of my editing , and I'll prove to you till the end of time is something on the talk page , while you tighten the discussion as much as possible ?

3707:

Solaire, I closed the ANI complaint against you with a formal final warning. I'm sure you noticed it, but just in case you haven't, this post is to make you aware of it.--

4272:

You'll have to make an unblock request that convinces an administrator or the community that you understand how your editing is disruptive and how you will change. See

335:, if your edit was reverted, take it to the talk page and reach consensus. If you refuse to do so, you will be reported, and probably blocked. You have been warned. 4722: 4351: 4180:

In this case, I will write to the administrators. I will not tolerate such a crude edit war and open opposition to attempts to find another source for information.

3260: 1419: 1248: 4258:

you yourself mentioned that I have the opportunity to improve situation through some kind of dialogue with the administrator. Could you mention what it was about?

1702:

Please do not engage in edit wars. If your edit was reverted, take it to the talk page and DO NOT try to add it again until the issue is resolved in the talk page.

272:

Please do not engage in edit wars. If your edit was reverted, take it to the talk page and DO NOT try to add it again until the issue is resolved in the talk page.

1751:

Now I will open the topic on the anime project talk page. If you continue the war of edits, then I will bring up the topic of depriving you of the rollback flag.

331:

You gave no arguments for you edit, except "What a sweet agitation of Ukrainian activists", which is by itself offensive and should not belong in WP. Please read

1486:

I apologize for the delay. I do not believe that this range is a webhosting range. After no reply from the blocking admin in over a month - I have unblocked it.

859:

Okay, you've both removed each other's comments from your own talk pages. It's best to just keep your distance at this point so you can avoid future conflicts.

4485:

that I actually read your answer and took note of it. If you also want me to additionally comment on something, then you can ask any questions, I will answer.

1719:

What war edits? You literally made the first rollbacks in order to return the original research and unauthorized sources to the article without any arguments.

2697:

Not to mention, in a comment on his most recent edit, Ermerich almost literally writes that my edit warning justifies him returning his version. Speak "ho is

4473:

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.

3361:

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.

1874:

Oh man (sorry, I don't know your gender), if this is so personal for you, then you can remove the template. But I'll still check the list from time to time.

1353:

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.

3393:

Hi Solaire, I got your message. It's a bit late for me to do anything with regards to this block so I'll just give some advice for the future. Except in

3074: 2882: 2306:

the fire. They're not going to reach consensus, they're just going to continue to provoke edit wars in an attempt to turn the discussion into a quagmire.

104: 100: 2640:

how you literally once again ignored my answer in favor of repeating his thesis and a mocking proposal not to use sources before the start of the war.

3764:

complaints from certain users. Not to mention, chatting would just litter the request page. But if you fully agree to talk here, then I do not mind.

2749: 2144: 243:

with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Knowledge (XXG)'s

112: 4717: 4346: 3255: 1799: 1734: 1670: 1414: 1243: 1059: 42: 30: 4290:

I will try to create it, but this is my first time doing this, so I hope that you will help me at least somehow correct this or advise something.

1098: 1074:

does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Knowledge (XXG), this is supplied at minimum in an

162:, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered 72: 3145:. That wasn't vandalism, in any way, and the edit summaries said why they had removed that material. You should have discussed, not reverted. 2101:. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to 931: 4458: 4230: 3346: 3104: 2561: 2282: 1464:

This IP range belongs to a mixed service provider. The company also provides internet access services for home users. My ip is 185.16.30.244.

1338: 4553:

Could you explain what you mean by boomerang? Did I understand you correctly that you agree that discussions in this format are problematic?

4439:

concern (possibly because of a language barrier?) and you will need to ensure future admin that you understand why your behaviour was wrong.

2507:. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 2135:

to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an

2075: 1985: 1626: 1293:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 38.128.66.93. Place any further information here.

1193: 1037: 174: 159: 1816:

The community has already made it clear to you that reviews cannot be used as confirmation of plot interpretation. What else do you need?

1684:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Knowledge (XXG)'s

254:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Knowledge (XXG)'s

4532:

Thank you for your answer, I will try to answer within a week or two, so as not to delay this and not to rush with thoughtless answers.

1654: 3557:

blocking admin's talk page. Making a snarky comment about a bot-delivered notification on my talk page was also really unnecessary. --

774: 768: 108: 810:, you've been asked to not post any comments to this user's talk page. Please do not make any edits there per this editor's request. 93: 4813:

Solaire the knight, as your appeal has been sitting for some time without review, the blocking admin has agreed to have it moved to

2950: 1765:

Ok, fine. Good luck with that. The page is your responsibility now. Your edits make me regret making it in the first place, back in

4087: 3819: 3085: 2890: 2478: 2263: 143: 2748:

Not sure why you are bringing up Russian Knowledge (XXG) as a positive example, when you appear to be indefinitely blocked there:

349:

You are on the talk page article looked at all to draw conclusions about the level of my argument ? Do not take me for an idiot .

4736: 4365: 3274: 1433: 1262: 718:

I think it clearly shows that it was a mistake . Earlier I deliberately made another edit to leave the same comment in English .

563: 62: 4576: 4281: 4242: 2071: 1981: 1622: 1189: 1033: 298: 4223: 4103: 3835: 3656: 3093: 2906: 2701:

does NOT matter. Being right is not, and never has nor ever will be, a valid defense to edit warring"? No response from you.

2550: 2498: 2474: 2271: 2140: 2106: 2045: 1955: 1678: 1650: 1597: 1164: 1016: 472: 248: 224: 4107: 3839: 3097: 2910: 2664:. I can see above plenty of evidence you know edit warring is not allowed here, yet chose to make 7 reverts today. Who is 2275: 4006: 2490: 1316:

to allow you to edit. Otherwise, the block log indicates that users affected by this block should contact a steward "at

57: 4427:

This unblock request doesn't address adding unreliable sources, so you will need to describe what a reliable source is (

3788:

Keep this up and I'm pretty much sure admins won't forgive you. Just let us edit in peace and not being a spoiled brat.

3691:

added fuel to the fire, trying to complicate them and achieve my block. Who is harassing whom? I wish I didn't see him.

3659:. Knowledge (XXG) aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as documented on 1067: 4324: 4218: 4213: 4115: 3847: 3668: 3233: 3057: 2918: 2541: 2486: 2150: 1697: 1221: 640: 571: 267: 167: 2057: 1967: 1609: 1176: 1028: 923: 292:. You either cease with your edit warring or you'll be reported to the administrators. This doesn't apply just to the 4694: 4318: 4010: 3227: 2482: 2239: 1666: 1391: 1215: 390:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Solaire_the_knight reported by User:UCaetano (Result: )

240: 67: 700:

Please use English when communicating on the English Knowledge (XXG). This edit summary in Russian is inappropriate

33:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Knowledge (XXG): 4572: 4323:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

4277: 4255: 4238: 4166:

You have been blocked for edit warring twice before. You should know this is not how Knowledge (XXG) works by now.

3232:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1220:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

801: 3661:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Civility_and_claims_of_harassment_by_User:Solaire_the_knight

123: 2843: 2797: 2623: 2166: 4645: 4120: 4099: 4083: 4020: 3852: 3831: 3815: 3163:

The template tells you how you can appeal the block. And both sides of this edit war have been blocked by me.

3078: 3070: 3066: 3025: 2923: 2902: 2886: 2554: 2256: 2252: 2207: 2136: 2098: 385: 190: 119: 37: 3680: 2473:. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose 2033: 1943: 1585: 1152: 1004: 5026: 4961: 4932: 4901: 4873: 4832: 4772: 4700: 4664: 4620: 4586: 4554: 4533: 4504: 4486: 4398: 4329: 4291: 4259: 4181: 4153: 4040: 3973: 3939: 3895: 3765: 3726: 3692: 3577: 3514: 3499: 3480: 3467: 3444: 3432: 3374: 3307: 3238: 3194: 3179: 3128: 2992: 2962: 2855: 2808: 2767: 2735: 2702: 2684: 2641: 2605: 2431: 2307: 2178: 1875: 1846: 1817: 1785: 1752: 1720: 1533: 1519: 1465: 1397: 1363: 1294: 1226: 880: 846: 831: 807: 719: 669: 619: 567: 519: 490: 454: 350: 318: 4604:, which you seem to be continuing. Do you need to have your talk page editing rights taken away as well? - 3664: 3553: 2961:

Umm, do you understand that I will return anonymously deleted information with sources without any reason?

2938: 1071: 752: 86: 5000:

When starting a new discussion on a talk or WP page, please add it to the bottom. I moved your comment at

2632:

You literally keep trying to shift the responsibility for the provocations of my opponents onto me? After

2404: 1865: 1835: 1807: 1774: 1742: 1709: 1669:

with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page at

966: 419: 4568: 4091: 3823: 3477:

Of course, after the end of the blocking, they continued to delete information in the same monotonous way

3329: 3089: 2894: 2504: 2494: 2393: 2267: 2110: 2102: 1693: 751:

and Knowledge (XXG) pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to

748: 263: 163: 4029: 3793: 3605: 3562: 3033: 2981: 2946: 2668:

does NOT matter. Being right is not, and never has nor ever will be, a valid defense to edit warring.

182: 52: 3672: 3601: 3572: 3558: 3029: 3020:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

2977: 2942: 2715:

3 reverts, 3 reverts... then, you, way more than 3 reverts. That's the difference. Not the content.

2202:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

380:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

3168: 3150: 3116: 2839: 2793: 2756: 2720: 2673: 2619: 2590: 2573: 2517: 2419: 2294: 2215: 2162: 1101:. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — 3785:

editors who were just minding their business, then I guess I can describe you in one word: a Karen.

3546: 3459: 3142: 2015: 1926: 1674: 1568: 1135: 991: 244: 130: 3797: 3753: 3676: 2470: 2113:, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. 4915: 4095: 3827: 3576:

author of the conflict. Writing after that that you understand why I'm upset is just insulting.

2898: 2029: 1939: 1581: 1148: 1000: 475:, but DO NOT engage in aggressive or disruptive behaviors, no matter how right you think you are. 5012: 4608: 3495: 3463: 3428: 657: 646: 605: 537: 509: 480: 442: 434: 411: 397: 340: 307: 293: 278: 228: 4960:

Many thanks to you and those who responded! I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner, I had the night!

3406: 2341: 2161:. Please find a consensus first on a talk page before returning new edits into article, thanks! 1798:

Well, it sounds like you are treating like a battlefield. Anyway, please discuss your issues on

645:

the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Knowledge (XXG), as you did at

151: 4171: 4137: 4059: 3962: 3927: 3884: 3869: 1861: 1831: 1803: 1770: 1738: 1705: 1109: 1086:. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted 1075: 962: 911: 791: 708: 415: 4601: 3420: 2789: 2041: 1951: 1593: 1160: 1012: 471:

Continue the discussion, and if you really feel there's no way to reach a consensus, ask for

155: 4467: 4025: 3789: 3355: 2460:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.

2064: 1974: 1616: 1347: 1324: 1183: 185:

is a good place to start learning about Knowledge (XXG). If you have any questions, see the

5001: 4436: 4273: 4016: 3725:

I don't know if my formal confirmation is required, but yes, I am aware of it. Thanks you.

3400: 2661: 2044:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2037: 1954:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1947: 1692:

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through

1685: 1596:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1589: 1163:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1156: 1015:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1008: 918:

that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

332: 289: 262:

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through

255: 4523: 4444: 3918: 3712: 3164: 3146: 3112: 3048: 2752: 2716: 2669: 2586: 2569: 2532: 2513: 2415: 2290: 2230: 2211: 2132: 1090: 936: 4846: 4814: 4428: 4229:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Knowledge (XXG)'s

437:

to restore the POV tag. If it's removed again, don't put it back or you will be blocked.

4653: 4124: 4094:

among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about

3856: 3826:

among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about

3749: 2927: 2897:

among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about

1658: 954: 587:"using such populism ignore the Knowledge (XXG) rules and powdering my brains demagogy" 232: 4098:. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant 3830:. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant 2901:. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant 2454: 2328: 766:

With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (

5005: 4605: 4550: 3413: 3333: 2244: 1511: 1492: 653: 601: 533: 505: 476: 438: 407: 393: 336: 303: 288:

You have been warned. You already tried to push your edit 4 times, that's beyond the

274: 194: 186: 5034: 5019: 4969: 4953: 4940: 4926: 4909: 4895: 4881: 4866: 4840: 4825: 4805: 4780: 4672: 4657: 4628: 4611: 4594: 4580: 4562: 4541: 4527: 4512: 4494: 4448: 4406: 4299: 4285: 4267: 4246: 4189: 4175: 4167: 4161: 4141: 4133: 4063: 4055: 4048: 4032: 3981: 3966: 3958: 3947: 3931: 3923: 3903: 3894:

attempts to discount the source by linking to its right views rather questionable.

3888: 3880: 3873: 3865: 3773: 3757: 3734: 3716: 3700: 3684: 3640: 3609: 3585: 3566: 3522: 3503: 3488: 3471: 3452: 3436: 3382: 3336: 3315: 3202: 3187: 3172: 3154: 3136: 3120: 3037: 3000: 2985: 2970: 2954: 2863: 2847: 2816: 2801: 2775: 2760: 2743: 2724: 2710: 2692: 2677: 2649: 2627: 2613: 2594: 2577: 2521: 2439: 2423: 2400:. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the 2315: 2298: 2219: 2186: 2170: 2079: 1989: 1883: 1869: 1854: 1839: 1825: 1811: 1793: 1778: 1760: 1746: 1728: 1713: 1630: 1541: 1527: 1513: 1494: 1473: 1371: 1328: 1302: 1197: 1113: 1102: 1063: 1041: 970: 888: 870: 854: 839: 821: 795: 787: 727: 712: 704: 677: 661: 627: 609: 541: 527: 513: 498: 484: 462: 445: 423: 401: 358: 344: 326: 311: 282: 208: 47: 3997: 2935:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2006: 1918: 1560: 1127: 982: 26: 4132:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 3864:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2345:. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and 3127:

Are you kidding me? I'm locked out of an edit war because I deleted vandalism?!

1320: 1317: 1070:. While you are welcome to re-use Knowledge (XXG)'s content, here or elsewhere, 4945:

Your appeal has been accepted and I've unblocked your account. Welcome back.--

4071: 3807: 2976:

defense. That the other editor is an IP does not change that in any way. Best,

2874: 1830:

Eh, I don't think there was any major consensus there, from what I could tell.

634: 4946: 4919: 4888: 4859: 4855: 4818: 4798: 4768: 4519: 4499: 4481: 4440: 3708: 3636: 3630: 1319:

should you be affected". This isn't something a local admin can lift, sorry.

953:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

4931:

Thanks again for your help! I will wait for the result, whatever it may be!

4649: 1502: 1079: 147: 4204: 2381:

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

3423:

using examples of diffs from the edit history to show a pattern of abuse.

3103:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the

2560:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the

2281:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the

2159:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Slava_Ukraini&oldid=1144772349

1506: 1487: 1078:

at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and

860: 811: 198: 173:

Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Knowledge (XXG) is

3814:

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an

2731: 2564:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: 2285:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: 2121:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;

2048:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1958:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1600:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1167:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1054: 1019:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

877:

if party argues that the rules allow him to do anything on his talk page

739: 2025:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1936:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1578:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1145:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

692:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

574:

from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

3628:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

651:

Please stop with your disruptive editing. This is your final warning.

4817:

for further review. Is that something you would be interested in?--

4431:) and how you will ensure that this mistake will not happen again. 3879:

Noticed after placing this that you self reverted, thanks for that.

3663:, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to 3600:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

89:– do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites. 3371:

have been deleted for several months by different users themselves

1062:

to Knowledge (XXG). It appears that you copied or moved text from

760: 4079: 4002: 2466:

imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

2061:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1971:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1613:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1180:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 107:. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be 99:

Take particular care while adding biographical material about a

4233:, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: 4123:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 3855:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 3107:, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: 2926:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 2051:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

2019:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

1961:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

1603:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

1170:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

1022:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

3024:

regarding a possible violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on

2206:

regarding a possible violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on

2131:

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

1930:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

1572:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

1084:

copied content from ]; see that page's history for attribution

384:

regarding a possible violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on

79:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Knowledge (XXG)

4685: 4309: 4203: 4070: 4013:

and take this opportunity to add references to the article.

3806: 3458:

any rate, live and learn, and try not to engage with people

3218: 3047: 2873: 2531: 2229: 1382: 1206: 830:? And what kindergarten " forbidden to leave the posts " ? 2788:... because they were reverting to a stable version as per 1696:. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being 266:. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being 3092:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 2270:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 5025:

My fault. Thanks for the help and sorry for the mistake.

4455:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

3343:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

1532:

My address was blocked again due to suspicion of hosting

1335:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

4475:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

3545:

Hi Solaire. Your behavior, at least toward me, has been

3363:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

3022:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

2204:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

1800:

Talk:List of lesbian characters in anime#Content dispute

1735:

Talk:List of lesbian characters in anime#Content dispute

1671:

Talk:List of lesbian characters in anime#Content dispute

1355:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1139:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

382:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

4794: 4750: 4746: 4740: 4731: 4727: 4713: 4709: 4705: 4379: 4375: 4369: 4360: 4356: 4342: 4338: 4334: 3476: 3370: 3288: 3284: 3278: 3269: 3265: 3251: 3247: 3243: 2638: 2633: 2158: 2032: