User talk:Ilikerabbits!

September 2017[edit]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Supersessionism. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. DMacks (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...including (and repeatedly even after warnings and blocks) sanitizing/whitewashing and related NPOV on various religious articles, and altering/removing talkpage comments of other editors and of yours after others have responded. DMacks (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only delteted talk page comments from me

{unblock|1=i only deleted m talk page comments}

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).

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

Request reason:

i only delered my comments Ilikerabbits! (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2017 (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. Yamla (talk) 11:52, 17 September 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I think I was blocked for deleting my talk page comments, i got a warning but since it said other people's comments i deleted my comment again and explained in the description that it was my comments i deleted. if it was wrong for me to dekete other people's comments responfing to my comment i apologize but i didnt really think about that when i deleted my comments Ilikerabbits! (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Despite warnings you have been removing content without stating a proper rationale. To be unblocked you need to show that you understand what you have been doing wrong and convince the reviewing admin that you will stop making disruptive edits. Just Chilling (talk) 15:00, 17 September 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.

You'll also want to show that you have read and understood the rationale given by the admin who blocked you, and to convince us that those issues will not recur. Huon (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I decided to comment because I remember you and I think that I understand where you're coming from. It's not a joy to see editors get blocked.

Deleting material from your own user talk page is permitted (WP:BLANKING).
Deleting comments on other talk pages is also permitted and even indicated in cases of obviously unconstructive comments (or posts from block-evading users, see WP:DENY).
In this case you were not only deleting your own comments from article talk pages (not your user page), but also blanking comments of several other editors. I also remember cases where you modified your own comments after other editors (including myself) responded, causing other editors to also amend their comments for them to adjust to the new context, which is suspicious (may appear intellectually dishonest).
But the main problem was persistent POV pushing while not forming or respecting consensus resulting from related discussions (see WP:NPOV, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS).
Several editors have warned multiple times that Wikipedia is not for promotion or soapboxing. We all have our personal beliefs but articles should result in summaries of what reliable sources say (ideally secondary sources). See WP:RS, WP:ONUS, WP:SOAPBOXING.

While this block is technically indefinite, it does not mean that it necessarily will be, but since it is not the first block and that an alternative to an indefinite block at this point could have been from two weeks to three months, I recommend to take some time off and think about all this, to not evade the block and to file a convincing unblock request in a few weeks. Maybe that an administrator will agree to lift the block and allow a third chance to WP:CLEANSTART then (but I cannot guarantee it, it'll be their decision to make and will depend on your arguments). Farewell, —Paleo Neonate – 16:58, 17 September 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).

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

Request reason:

okay i wont delete other peoples comments and i will try tp justify my changes Ilikerabbits! (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC) :I will try to not break rules and wont delete others comments only mine if that is allowed Ilikerabbits! (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks and no admin has decided to weigh in. You are welcome to request another unblock, but if you do so, please rewrite your request. Yamla (talk) 15:36, 6 October 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.

February 2021[edit]

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

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

Request reason:

I understand the reasons that you gave for blocking me and if I get unblocked I will plan to make edits on pages related to a different topic (The British Empire's history) instead of the types of pages I was editing earlier. I was blocked several years ago and have had little to do with editing Wikipedia ever since..Ilikerabbits! (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per below. Now go and sin no more! (And happy editing!) Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support WP:Standard offer. I am not concerned about the topic focus, but about the edits themselves. I'm not sure whether the process is that I accept and perform the unblock (as blocking admin) or just leave this note here for Daniel Case (who is currently reviewing the block). DMacks (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just in the process of accepting the unblock ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Ilikerabbits, —Paleo Neonate – 17:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]