User talk:Ronaldomessirooneymourinho

Ronaldomessirooneymourinho, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Ronaldomessirooneymourinho!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Doctor (Doctor Who) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:59, 9 December 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).

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

Request reason:

All contributions I have made have been positives and I have actually made few edits myself. If the person who blocked me had bothered to look on the TALKPAGE they would have seen I was involved in a discussion and not some sort of edit war. It is little wonder Wikipedia is struggling to find donations if his is how it treats it's users. What organisation blocks you when you don't agree with their opinion. I was talking to other users trying to make the page better and then I am blocked because an admin disagrees with my views.

Decline reason:

You are blocked because you were engaged in an edit war, not because of the content of your edits. Yes, you were talking on the talk page, but you were also continuing to get your way on the article page. You can be unblocked immediately once you show us you understand what the problem was and will stick to the talk page while content is under dispute. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:03, 10 December 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).

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

Request reason:

RIght ok I'll stick to the TALKPAGE. I didn't realised it worked like this. In future I will only edit the TALKPAGE until a consensus has been reached. Thanks for clearing this up.

Decline reason:

While you were warned rE: edit warring, the actual block was for abuse of multiple user accounts, which was confirmed by a checkuser admin. The abuse of multiple accounts is a violation of site policy (see WP:SOCKS). - Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:31, 10 December 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.

Note to reviewing admin -- I'd neglected to notice this was a block for abusing multiple accounts; this is a checkuser verified sockpuppet of User:Drwho16. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:18, 10 December 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).

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

Request reason:

You've got the wrong guy. Who am I a sock puppet of? I thought I was blocked for editing. I apologise for the edit war but I deny being a sock puppet.

Decline reason:

The combination of editing coincidences and checkuser evidence together establish beyond reasonable doubt that this is a block-evading sockpuppet account. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 10 December 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.