User talk:Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion./arcive/hdwe89g2-9gfb298f23n8ecu982rb98d23v8723et872tf4r873ft47d823

== Potential violation of unblock conditions == Floquenbem I see you unblocked this user on the condition that they refrain from attacking a specific user regarding gender issues. In their unblock request they stressed that they just wanted to edit football articles. Recently they made a very non-AGF comment toward the same user at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. Would this justify re-blocking? 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Well I just wanted to talk about the sources, I wasn't calling anyone bad or anything. And if you see my contributions. Like literally 99.9% of my contributions are football articles. I'm fulfilling my promises and also, am planning on creating a new football article 2022 in association football so I think I'm doing fine. Hey! That was my thousandth edit! Awesome! \ 07:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Also didn't I do that del thing you taught me how to do? I don't get why this is still an issue. I followed your directions, and by my contributions, I am doing a lot of good work and help with a lot of articles! :::I wasn't aware you had previously been blocked for making personal attacks, which puts your comments in a much different light. Being a productive editor overall doesn't give anyone a license to make snarky comments about other editors. You were already notified about discretionary sanctions in this topic area. 08:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Did you forget about what we were talking about before. That I was talking about the source and not the person? What happened to that? 13, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Sandeboeuf There is no way they will ban me over this. I haven't even done anything. 1. I said before that I am interesting in editing football articles in Wiki. And if you even bothered checking my edits, that's what I've been doing. 2. I refrain from attacking people regarding gender issues. I have never attacked anyone after the unblock. What you are sourcing is absolutely ridiculous and BAFFLES ME because we had a discussion like just an hour ago that I wasn't attacking the person, and that I was directing that at the source. 3. That is one of the only non-football related edit I've done and it was on the talk page not the article even. 4. I know it says "you" but as our discussion before we both know I was talking to the source. I would've edited it but it's against the rules. You told me to just put the delete (or slash) mark on it. Which I did. So I don't know why you are still bringing this up. 5. Previously (how I was blocked) I was seriously attacking someone (literally going on their talk page) and saying bad things. This is nowhere near that. 6. As you can see from my user page. I created a deleted article, an article, and looking to create another. I'm not here to hate and this is a mostly-sport Wiki account. That's the stuff I'm interested in. If I see an issue or a typo in a different article, I will bring it up or fix it. If I say I'm focused on football articles means I can't conversate with someone about a different article. 7. That was the only other non-sport article I have ever edited (from what I remember) since the unblock (unless it was a typo). There is absolutely no reason I should be blocked. I would've said more reasons but I forgot what I was going to say. : You may want to review the First Rule of Holes. We'll see what the blocking admin has to say. 08:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Only reason I'm explaining like this is that I thought our previous conversation was resolved so I deleted it. I delete all resolved conversations on my talk page. It was resolved until a few hours later you out of nowhere tried to ban me. 8:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC) : Given everything said here, you should seriously consider striking your most recent comment. You should also apologize to immediately for the personal attack. For what? Saying "I know what you're doing here"? How is this a personal attack? In which planet? 09:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)