User talk:7rexkrilla
Based on what assumptions do I appear to be the same person as Morphjam?
- Common sense. Just count yourself lucky that THIS account wasn't also blocked permanently: you got one bite of the apple, and I doubt you'd get a second one. --Calton | Talk 23:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Go on and call for an SPI with your common sense, and don't forget to issue an apology after that. 7rexkrilla (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Completely unnecessary, since your sock's already been blocked. Using your new, never-blocked sock to complain about being blocked (as you were and you did) was a sockpuppeteer's rookie mistake. So no, you're not getting an apology soon. And by "soon", I mean "before the heat death of the universe". --Calton | Talk 09:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Go on and call for an SPI with your common sense, and don't forget to issue an apology after that. 7rexkrilla (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
March 2019
[edit]
Your recent editing history at The Great Replacement conspiracy theory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; 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 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 you 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. Acroterion (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alerts: AP & BLP
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.
―Mandruss ☎ 10:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
[edit]
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2021
[edit] This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Alec Baldwin, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 웃OO 09:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why not just block the account? The user has a history of sockpuppetry and clearly has no constructive agenda.50.111.2.158 (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)