User talk:Saluspopuli

October 2017

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Ingrid Detter de Frankopan, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Who is the 'head of Wikipedia?' Where have you reported these problems to? Our m:OTRS team? I see no other contributions than your removals. And please do not SHOUT, this is a virtual library ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Your recent edits to User talk:Jim1138#libelous information under the entry Ingrid Detter and under the House of Frankopan could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Giant Snowman 11:43, 1 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here Saluspopuli (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per WP:NLT, you are welcome to edit Wikipedia or you are welcome to pursue matters in a court of law. You are not permitted to do both. You can be unblocked if you unconditionally withdraw all legal threats, or if your legal action is complete. Yamla (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2017 (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.

I alerted Wikipedia to libelous information about living persons. Why should I be blocked for that?Saluspopuli (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

You made explicit threats of legal action yourself, and that is why you are blocked. You are, of course, at will to commence whatever legal action you wish, but you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while any such action or threat of action is outstanding. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I unconditionally withdraw all legal threats. I never meant to make such threat and think what I said was misunderstood. In any event, I totally retract any legal threats. Saluspopuli (talk)

Put that in an unblock request (which will place it in an alert list) and someone will come along and review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find where to place the unblock request! Please help! Have spent hours now trying to be unblocked.Saluspopuli

You do it the same way you made your previous unblock request, above. I'll copy a blank one below for you, and all you have to do is edit it and replace the "your reason here" text with "I unconditionally withdraw all legal threats. I never meant to make such threat and think what I said was misunderstood. In any event, I totally retract any legal threats." and add four tildes ("~~~~") at the end of the sentence to append your signature. (You actually have to do it yourself so that it gets your signature, not mine). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

your reason here

Accept reason:

The legal threat has been retracted unconditionally, so the block in no longer serving its purpose. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: - what about all the legal threats in their edit summaries here? Giant Snowman 14:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I considered those to be covered by the statement I unconditionally withdraw all legal threats... In any event, I totally retract any legal threats. I didn't see the need to revdel them, but perhaps they should be, on reflection. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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 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 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. --Yamla (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have continued your edit warring across multiple articles. It looks like you are not here to contribute to the Wikipedia. If I catch you doing any more edit warring, I will block you indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Please see WP:TLDR...you are much more likely to get help if you post inn a succinct manner. Giant Snowman 16:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]