User talk:Danny Mamby

November 2021[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Fruitarianism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Are you seriously going to reward Zefr, the individual who reported me for "reverting" when I was the one continuing to develop the article and they were the individual who had kept doing the reversion? The same individual who also made absolutely false accusations in their summaries such as, that I had used blogs as reference when, in fact, I had removed them (and it was they who were re-instating them); Or that I had made "No constructive edits" when I had added references & copy edited paragraphs that badly needed it? Because if you are, that's creating a very poor precedent where someone can deliberately lie and state the opposite of the truth, accuse others of what they themselves were doing, and "win" just by know how & where to put a report in, & be willing to waste their and others time and effort, and destroy others goodwill. All to protect their unreference two word contribution to the topic [1]. --Danny Mamby (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:57, 26 November 2021 (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.