User talk:Bigidilijak

May 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar 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. Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard Incident[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bigidilijak reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: ). Thank you. G S Palmer (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented there.

May 2014[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black ~~Kite~~ kite (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why am I blocked, and user freemesm not? I stopped to editing but user fremeesm didn't. This is my first edit war, and 72 hours it is too much, instead freemesm was already blocked for 48, and now it is his second time, so he should be blocked for 1 month. thanks Bigidilijak (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2014 (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'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:00, 29 May 2014 (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.

User:LucrativeOffer please undid freemesm's revision Bigidilijak (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC) thanks[reply]

Which revision?

Please note that if you edit on behalf of a blocked user, you will also be blocked for an equivalent time as you are effectively a sockpuppet of that user. Black ~~Kite~~ kite (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK Black Kite. Bigidilijak, see you on Sunday.

Black Kite after ignoring your warning, User:LucrativeOffer start edit warring on behalf of Bigidilijak. It happened just after Bigidilijak's call. Please check these [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. In these edits he pushed wp:NPOV, WP:BLP and non WP:RS. Here I explain those [9]--FreemesM ^(talk) 01:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.