User talk:DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph)

I noticed your discussion about adding "landlocked" to various US state articles, and wanted to ask: are you intending to add landlocked/coastal to every state article? If so, I would strongly suggest opening a discussion somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States (or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography) and gauge other editors opinions before making changes to so many articles. Also a minor note, I think it's a bit misleading to say in your edit summaries that you had reached consensus with Pbritti about this change, as that is not what happened. They did not agree that this term should be included, but suggested you restore it so that other editors would give more opinions. Good luck on your campaign. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the

contentious

. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Kindly confine your editing in the AI area, per the notices above and

WP:ARBECR, to the filing of edit requests only. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I apologize for the oversight, thank you for correcting me! DS537(WIR) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going ahead and putting up the nomination. After the recent NFL and NBA discussions it was just a matter of time until someone would test the MLB pages to see if a similar result occurred. Now we at least know, which is a benefit for Wikipedia. And, again, welcome, I hope you enjoy editing the project. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your merger of the articles

Well, I won’t undo your revert, but I’d like to understand why the merge fell solely upon the proposal. Per

WP:WTRMT, You may remove a template when according to your best judgment the lack of edits and/or talk page discussion should be interpreted as the issue not worth fixing (as a form of "silent consensus"). The merge lasted a solid amount of time prior to the revert, and could have been beneficial to readers. Hope we can agree on something. DS537(WIR) 12:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators:

IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2024 (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).

DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, and thank you and

one-up or another chance

. Please leave comments or concerns below. Thank you.

Decline reason:

WP:3X, which would mean no admin could unilaterally lift your block. Yamla (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2024 (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.