Jump to content

User talk:MervinVillarreal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MervinVillarreal Talk Page
Home Talk Contributions

Welcome!

[edit]
Some cookies to welcome you!
Welcome to Wikipedia, MervinVillarreal! Thank you for your contributions. I am MisterShiney and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! MisterShiney ✉ 18:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! MervinVillarreal (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MervinVillarreal, you are invited to the Teahouse

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi MervinVillarreal! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm

[edit]

Random question, why have you set out your talk page exactly like mine? Right down to the colours in the title part? MisterShiney ✉ 21:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


dont is the same MervinVillarreal (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on editing English Wikipedia then I must insist that your use of the written English Language improves! It is the same. Right down to the shade of Orange surrounding your username at the top. MisterShiney ✉ 22:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I am waiting for your reply in World War Z. MervinVillarreal (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. I am refusing to respond because I refuse to go around in circles like a child. MisterShiney ✉ 22:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

then, nationality can change?MervinVillarreal (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is being left open to other editors to contribute. MisterShiney ✉ 22:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so what is a consensus? do not British production in the movie, then this cant to have a "UK" in the section of countryMervinVillarreal (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus has not been reached. Mainly because one of the editors cant even write in English properly to be able to, in my personal opinion, not only put across his argument but to make suitable edits. MisterShiney ✉ 22:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My English is not perfect, but I try to improve, and I do not want that Wikipedia articles are false. "World war Z Film" for example. MervinVillarreal (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I respectfully suggest that you leave it for English speaking Wikipedians or those Wikipedians with a firm enough grasp of the English Language. Perhaps you would be better suited to Spanish Wikipedia. The article is not false as it currently stands. MisterShiney ✉ 22:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

clear that it is false, the movie has no British producer, and leads to "UK" in the section of country. you can explain me it?MervinVillarreal (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been explained to you....GK is in fact a British Producer. You can cite as many sources as you want saying it's offices are in California, but don't forget, that it is common practice for film production companies to have offices in Los Angeles...you know...where Hollywood is? MisterShiney ✉ 23:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Look, if you find any source that says that GK Films is based in UK, or even having offices in UK, I forget all about World War Z, but if not, I will proceed to change the nationality of the film, since I have the evidence to prove that world war z film is American, and no have British producer company to determining nationality "except the director, this has no bearing on nationality", in wikipedia, we determine the nationality of the movie, for that; who company produces the movie and who distributed, you know, you need find any source that says that GK Films has offices in London even, or else I will go to change the nationality, I have my reliable sources.

and I know you understand that.

here are my sources

MervinVillarreal (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

Hello sir, I am the user from India. Most of the users are vandalizing the wiki article.I dnt know how to avoid their disruptive editing.I need ur help lot to overcome this sir..I am auto confirmed user nw and wat else shud I do to warn them?? Please help meBenjaminvetri (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you need talk with a Administrator.MervinVillarreal (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

Hi. I've blocked you for one week, due to much the same behavior that got you blocked the last time. You apparently show no interest in discussing with other editors, but instead go around reverting on multiple articles again and again. Also, replies like this doesn't really help your situation. I've set the block for one week for now, use that time to cool down and read up on policy. Bjelleklang - talk 18:40, 4 January 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

First, when I returned to do vandalism? I not revert an article 3 times in less than 24 hours to be considered vandalism? Or am I wrong? second, he insult me, please read; "I Would Have just templated your ass" Where is my vandalism? Tests will I show? please

The last time I was blocked, blocked me because I reversed an article three times in less than 24 hours, I have the evidence, so then why I was blocked? .... Also, add a national "American" than once every 24 hours is vandalism?

exactly! the last time that I was blocked was for edit warring, and I accept it, I did ,but since that i was unblocked, I not do more a edit warring, so I say What are my edit wars that I did today? 04/01/2013? Thank

Decline reason:

You are blocked for disruptive behaviour, incivility and edit warring (note: not 3RR violations - whilst 3RR is a bright line rule, you can edit war without breaking it, which you did). Since you have not addressed any of these issues, I am declining this unblock requestYunshui 雲‍水 19:31, 4 January 2013 (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.

Just a small comment; you don't have to violate 3RR to have an edit war. You've had around 20 edits for the past few days where you either add "american" or remove other nationalities, or revert other users opposing you. 3RR is just one part of the policy on edit warring, and what you did was disruptive. In addition, you've been uncivil with edits such as this and the link in my blocknotice, you've added or removed WikiProject templates ([1], [2]) without being part of the WikiProjects and you've removed discussions such as here. I won't respond to any appeals, but will leave it up for other admins to decide. Bjelleklang - talk 18:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|The last time I was blocked, blocked me because I reversed an article three times in less than 24 hours, I have the evidence, so then why I was blocked? .... Also, add a national "American" than once every 24 hours is vandalism?}}

Please see my note above. Read WP:EW, and pay special attention to the lead: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable: it is no defence to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". Bjelleklang - talk 19:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment It should also be noted that I suspect that this user socks using IP's to further their agenda and try and get past the 3RR. In particular this edit and this talk page addition. Among other older edits. MisterShiney ✉ 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|exactly! the last time that I was blocked was for edit warring, and I accept it, I did ,but since that i was unblocked, I not do more a edit warring, so I say What are my edit wars that I did today? 04/01/2013? Thank u}} MervinVillarreal (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post more than one unblock request at a time. I have untemplated the two extraneous ones above and copied their content to your original request. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, another couple of suspected IP contribs are: 190.72.13.88 and this one 190.78.20.155. MisterShiney ✉ 23:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whose arezthese ip? mine are not. my ip is: 190.198.26.57 MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mervin, in a little while this block will be over. In the meantime, you can ponder a few questions, and the better you ponder them, the longer your career here will be. a. do you know why you're blocked? b. what is it you're trying to accomplish on Wikipedia? c. do you think that what you want and what Wikipedia can use are two different things, or do you think you can contribute something? Drmies (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do the best I can. but I think wikipedia is not the most reliable website to find information about things, but that yes.. is the most famous. MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer you in a week .... I'll take a vacation, I'm going to ... REAL LIFE.MervinVillarreal (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if admins are monitoring this page, but I believe that Special:Contributions/190.198.26.57 is clearly Mervin avoiding his block, the edits are clearly his, one in reply to a post he started as Mervin. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello,Why my blocked for 1 week, and now up to a month? I had blocked for 1 week, now im blocked until February 7, why that raise?MervinVillarreal (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MervinVillarreal/Archive. GRAPPLE X 01:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I doing vandalism? So much time for that? IP these had blocked me, but the admin never said me that could not continue to use these accounts with those IP, since I'm blocked in my account, not IP. MervinVillarreal (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your block was extended because you were misusing alternate accounts to avoid it. It's that simple. GRAPPLE X 01:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Where is the proof? so, if someone other than me, use my computer to edit on Wikipedia, also my account go to be blocked? administrator blocked my account, not my IP. MervinVillarreal (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else with the exact same editing practices and writing style just happened to use your computer? Just admit you were caught out. GRAPPLE X 01:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's what he is actually admitting. Let me run it through the textometer...*beep beep* "Dear sir, I was not committing vandalism, I was simply editing using these various IPs to which I have access for normal, non vandalism reasons as you can imaging, toff toff. I'm sure you can understand that, when my user account was blocked, I was quite stunned, but since the dear Admin fellow who had the cheek to give me a little slap on the wrist did not specify I was not only blocked from using said prior account, I was under the impression that I could continue to edit, just not logged in. After all dear sir, why would a block mean I should in fact, toff, be blocked from editing? Guffaw dear sir, I say guffaw". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, how you know it? may be can be other person, or no? I repeat you, if my account is blocked, but not my ip, and another person edits on wikipedia, and maybe it can doing what im doing, <Did you read well? Will my account need be blocked again? MervinVillarreal (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and a little thing, maybe a lot of you will say, "He who wants to do is just vandalism on wikipedia and doing just patriotism," Answer: No, just trying to get it right and doing this 100% true. but for do those things, how is my end? blocked for one month "Applause" MervinVillarreal (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't "trying to get it right", you're maliciously ignoring facts, policies and consensus. When your block expires, if you somehow manage to become a constructive editor, then hopefully no it won't. But if you're going to edit war, avoid blocks and pretend you're doing nothing wrong, then you'll likely be editing very few pages other than this one for the foreseeable future. GRAPPLE X 02:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

don't worry, a month goes by fast, I can wait.MervinVillarreal (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you don't forget Mervin that the block is on YOU as a person/editor and not your IP address. I should point out that an IP address is assigned to only one computer at any one time (not the network) and it can be quite some time before it is reassigned to someone else, should said computer change it's IP address. In other words, don't even try and kid us. We are all nerds with far too much time on our hands. MisterShiney ✉ 07:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what I still do not understand is that why im blocked a month by using my IP address to edit? supposed that my account is still locked, but no the IP. MistherShaney can you explain?, of course, if u know answer. Thanks dude. MervinVillarreal (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Mr Shiney explained above, the fact that you can edit through an IP is immaterial. YOU, the real-life human being sat at a computer, are prohibited from editing, not this account. Since you're on a dynamic IP, yes, you have the technical means to evade the block; each time you do so your edits will be reverted and your chances of ever being allowed to edit again will be reduced. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic IP?? of course not, I dont have programs for that, and my modem is not dynamic, my ip is one that is and will be: 190.78.0.1 MervinVillarreal (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the IP you listed as yours higher up on this page, and 190.198.26.57 certainly looks dynamic to me. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I live in Venezuela, but it says my computer, my ip is 190.78.0.1, that's all, where did you get 190.198.26.57? MervinVillarreal (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You posted it yourself and claimed it was yours. GRAPPLE X 23:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This for you Yunshui; SO, both say they are from Venezuela, the both IP's, how could have a dynamic IP address when is the same site, and the same country, and the same state?,

The IP your provider attributes to your computer is dynamic because the IP changes, the fact that you have clearly admitted that both of those IPs are you demonstrates that. Having a dynamic IP means blocking your IP on this site is not possible but it doesn't mean that you cannot be blocked—using a dynamic IP to edit through a block is not permissible and will just see the block extended. GRAPPLE X 00:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I tell you again and again, it is not dynamic MY IP, I'm saying where they find this IP: 190.198.26.57, because my ip is, 190.78.0.1. that's it, besides Yunshui says: "you're on a dynamic IP, yes, You have the technical means to evade the block" (...), "you have the technical means to evade the block" Oh REALLY? MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC) and i want a answer from he, and from MisterShaney. MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did they find it? HERE. When you said it was yours. GRAPPLE X 00:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


MistherShaney talks about these ip; 190.72.13.88, 190.78.20.155

Where did they come from? I say again, not my IP, and then, if 190.198.26.57 is my ip, I can not be using dynamic IP, then my modem is dynamic, but Yunshui says " you have the technical means to evade the block " if I were using a program to have a dinamyc ip, then it cant give the same location, the same state and the same country. MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either you're being wilfully ignorant at this point or I'd like to speak to your carer. GRAPPLE X 00:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


and I want that Yunshu tell me, why I have "the technical" to change my ip.MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Well, this is a really unhelpful conversation all around. Mervin, your IP address is something that your internet provider assigns to you. Sometimes, they don't always assign you the same address each time you connect to the Internet. That's called a dynamic IP address, and it's not a program you run yourself or anything. They're all geolocating to the same place because they're all from teh same internet provider, but the actual computer they represent changes from time to time. That's what we're saying. It's not malicious on your end or anything, it's just how your Internet works. The practical upshot for you is: do not try to edit Wikipedia while you're logged out, even if you find yourself technically able to. Even if you can, you're not supposed to while this block is active. Does that help? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, so, was me, who misread? what he said Yunshu? I think it was that, whatever, so if I can not edit being "logged out" then why the blockade lasts a month in my account, and 2 weeks in the IP?, why not have the same blocked time?

And while I'm editing in wikipedia " logged out ", the blocked need up from one week to one month? MervinVillarreal (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Keeper? Yunshu? a answer? MervinVillarreal (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because your IP address isn't always yours, it can be assigned to someone else. So, if we block your IP address for a month, and your IP address gets reassigned to someone else tomorrow (which does happen), they're now blocked for 29 days for something they didn't do. So, if someone edits as an IP while their account is blocked, they're potentially being a dick to dozens of other, completely innocent people, who are caught up in the blocks as collateral damage. The moral of the story: editing as an IP address while blocked is a real dick move, so don't do it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

then, every day I have a new IP? ..OK, if a person edit on wikipedia with the IP that i had "which does happen..." I go to be blocked again for another month? THAT GOOD, now i understand all. MervinVillarreal (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you edit with a different IP, you will be blocked further. But your IP will be blocked too, meaning others will lose out. You can't blame others for your own disruptive editing, but you have caused the potential for others to be disadvantaged. GRAPPLE X 02:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GRAPPLE, own disruptive editing? oh, sound good, definitely i do not understand the rules of Wikipedia, are so confusing and weird, that simply do not make sense, but anyway, one month is nothing, I'll wait to keep doing what I do .. GOOD THINGS. MervinVillarreal (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why you should read up on policy. Keep in mind that you are the one who has violated several policies, and unless you actually take the time to read up on and understand the basic principles behind Wikipedia (notability, verifiability, neutrality and civility). As you've shown several times before and admitted now, you don't know how Wikipedia works. Please spend the next month learning how it works. As mentioned below, if you keep up what you have been doing you will be blocked again! This is not in any way a threat, I'm just telling you what will happen if the disruption continues. Bjelleklang - talk 07:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I keep doing what I do, "discuss in a consensus" . Will I be blocked for that? I think not. MervinVillarreal (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC) MervinVillarreal (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off you need to know that a consensus is the OUTCOME not the process of a discussion. Secondly, you will find yourself blocked/reverted/rolled back at every opportunity from a cadre of editors who are now aware of your intent to continue your disruptive behaviour. You are best off taking the block on the chin and coming back reformed. MisterShiney ✉ 07:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"who are now aware of your intent to continue your disruptive behaviour" I never i said that it would continue with that, whatever, also, i never did, and I will not argue about it, just i say that i will continue to participate in all consensus that i can, because that's the point, to discuss, to find an answer and a point . Then, wait for 1 month,I do not forget " World War z", and Rockstar Games  :') MervinVillarreal (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

[edit]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Yunshui 雲‍水 09:23, 11 February 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

where is the proof of that? since that I'm unlocked, I do not doing nothing again MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your ANI thread is full of evidence. Max Semenik (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2013 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

WHERE? I never did disruptive editing, edit war is very different, and no I did not..and if I had doing edit war, I cant be blocked indefinitely, I'd say that would be long. MervinVillarreal (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Disruptive editing is a broad category. Edit-warring is just one kind of disruptive editing. As previously stated in the last decline, the ANI thread on your behavior, to which you ultimately declined to respond, despite being urged to do so, has some evidence of your persistent disruptive editing and your apparent deafness to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as the opinions of other editors. I also suggest you think very carefully if you wish to make another unblock request as repeated meritless unblock requests is considered abusive. Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2013 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

But the problem here is that I never did that, never delete an entire article, or delete information harmful to a user or insults, none of that, I dont have that be blocked for that reason, I Never did "disruptive editing", but of course , you would expect of an Administrator review. MervinVillarreal (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Okay, if you want an in-depth explanation of what was disruptive, here you go. First off, one definiton of disruptive editing (out of many): "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia." (from definition of disruptive editing) Now, what you did: you started the discussion on World War Z's nationality on December 25th, 2012. In the face of unanimous opposition from multiple users, you persisted in dragging out the conversation right up until you were blocked on January 4th, 2013. (You probably used IP addresses to continue the debate even while blocked: [3].) Since you were the only one in favor of your opinion, the debate dies, as it should've long before. Very quickly after your block is released, over a month since the conversation died and about a month and a half since the discussion was started, you go back to the thread to try to force the discussion to reopen, and keep it open, against, again, unanimous opposition: [4]. After others rightly tell you that the conversation is over, you edit-war in an attempt to force the issue to stay open: [5][6][7][8]. That is absolutely, 100%, textbook disruptive editing, as defined by the quote from the guideline above. Since you still don't realize that this was disruptive, and you still show no sign of being willing to abide by community consensus when it doesn't go your way, I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline this request, as well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:36, 12 February 2013 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

Ok, first, "In the face of unanimous opposition from multiple users, you persisted in dragging out the conversation right up Until You Were blocked on January 4th, 2013", "You probably used IP addresses to continue the discussion even while blocked" no evidence of that. "Since you were the only one in behalf of your opinion, the discussion dies, as long before it should've. Very Quickly after your block is released, over a month since the conversation died and About a month and a half since the discussion was started, you go back to the thread to try to force the discussion to reopen, and keep it open, against, again, unanimous opposition " where says in wikipedia that consensus should end if it's been a time has not published anything? "After Rightly others tell you That the conversation is over, you edit-war in an Attempt to force the issue to stay open:" Read: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:IDHT#Blocking_and_sanctions "Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks, Typically starting with 24 hours." I never received any warning from anyone I present over 10 reliable sources about the nationality of the movie, in the same website of the producer company, not is based in uk says on the website. but, whatever, I will not argue more, maybe in the future someone else arrives and open another topic about nationality "oh my god, no from Venezuela, I dont want be blocked again." how long is "indefinitely" 1, 2, 3 months? MervinVillarreal (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Indefinitely" means "until the community is convinced the problems will not recur. Based on the WP:BATTLE mentality above, that might lean towards "infinite". You show ZERO understanding the what led to your block, and by wrongly quoting policy you're hoping to Wikilawyer your way out of a block (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:39, 12 February 2013 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

I do not understand, how they will know that I've changed, if I'm blocked, in three month maybe none remember me, and I will be forever blocked MervinVillarreal (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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.

You can discuss your block with editors responding here through regaular threading and indenting; using the unblock request template repeatedly and unnecessarily will likely reult in your talk page access being revoked.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand, how they will know that I've changed, if I'm blocked, in three month maybe none remember me, and I will be forever blockedMervinVillarreal (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about your editing habits per se, but also your attitude. If you refrain from abusing your talk page access like you have with unblock requests, you can still use this page to communicate with other editors—and if you can demonstrate that your attitude to editing has changed and you're willing to actually read and understand what other editors say to you, then that would show you've changed. You don't need to be unblocked to demonstrate a change in your attitude. GRAPPLE X 23:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take some time to read and learn, from, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Policy I do not want to happen to me again in the future, I think my ignorance caused me that I've been blocked 2 times this year, sometimes I think that what I say is right, but as I said, I'll take the time to learn more from wikipedia . MervinVillarreal (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MervinVillarreal&oldid=1077908404"