User talk:Playnot

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Muhammad in Islam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 your 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I do no violate yet

This is bs.

i have found this. Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.

October 2015

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Social network. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Playnot reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Black Kite (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What happen.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I receive no serious warning before i received temporary ban. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 04:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The time difference is about 6 minutes.

Decline reason:

You jumped straight into a controversial subject with a battleground attitude. 31 hours is not a long time; sit out the block and think about how to interact better with other editors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Note this is probably a sock of Simpleabd. Expect a lot of unblock requests. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What now. What is going on? you are the same guy who blocked that user. judge me justly and fair, block is not punitive. at least judge me based on my contribution. without challenge, life is boring. all mankind have conscience. it is one of the mystery in this life.

This user is most probably a sock of Simpleabd. The above argument "you are the same guy who blocked that user" speaks much about this. And the pseudo-philosophizing comments like "all mankind have conscience. it is one of the mystery in this life" is characteristic of Simpleabd. -AsceticRosé 06:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what is going on. I just did WP:IAR and WP:BOLD when reverting in article of Muhammad in Islam. Such rule is made here in order to avoid conspiracy and bad faith. The goal here in this website is to build an encyclopedia and some information in Muhammad in Islam is not constructive. If any of us have bad faith and no goal to build an encyclopedia, then that person must leave as earlier as possible or at least do not cause disturbance to editor who contributes in good faith. This website can be sue by anyone especially about illegal copyright material that's why editors who are in bad faith should leave in this website.

• I'd point out that there was not "6 minutes" between warnings - you were given an edit-warring warning at 23:00 yesterday - it's still there above. The 6 minutes was between you being reported for edit-warring, and being blocked for edit-warring. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi ppl, is there any mistake happening in my account? My block setting might malfunctioned. When i click in 'Çontribution', I saw my block settings was changed with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Sock of User:Simpleabd per CU/behavioral evidence). Please tell me how edit warring is caused my account to have additional criminal charge.

P.S, I am just saying that the goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia than following any rules. We are not here to socialize, to cause terror, to affect people in bad desire, to be famous, to feared badly by people but we are here to build an encyclopedia. If we contact the developer of this website, I think he might said that as well.

New Unblock Request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What is going on? Please tell me why my block setting changed with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Sock of User:Simpleabd per CU/behavioral evidence) when they charged me of only edit warring. Our goal in this website is simple, to build an encyclopedia, is that really complicated? If i am guilty in any of the charges that you know, I shouldn't have talked but i did because we knew the goal of this website.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Abuser of multiple account.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

You know what is the beauty of this website? WP:IAR. prisoner can build encyclopedia while he is in prison, prisoner can build a novel while he is prison.

I ashamed that wiki volunteers do not show respect in the goal of this website, If you think my edit in Muhammad in Islam is not encyclopedic content, then i do not deserve to fight my right to help here. If any of my contributions have a single bad faith, i do not deserve to stay in this website.

Sorry if i made it too long, I was saying is the goal of this website is to build encyclopedia no matter what charges you have. In this website, we are judged based on the contribution. If you own the website, and a prisoner made 7 good articles, will you ban him when he intends to add more article? and will you revert all his edits?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:You_Can%27t_Follow_All_The_Rules,_All_The_Time I cannot follow all the rules all the time. Even i follow some rules and even i forced myself to follow rules, wiki volunteers can find a way to eliminate me.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The rules are only barriers to keep children from falling. The sad thing i was newbie in this website.

Decline reason:

Well, you clearly weren't new to the site, since you've already been blocked under other name(s). Withdrawing TP access. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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.