User talk:Legis Regis

Welcome! .

April 2020[edit]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:Praxidicae, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. ——SN 54129 19:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Legis Regis/sandbox[edit]

A tag has been placed on User:Legis Regis/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ——SN 54129 19:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAPBOX[edit]

If you add that customer service video again, you will be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am being harrassed on this encyclopedia. --Legis Regis (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've done nothing but be disruptive. Maybe if you stopped you would stop drawing the attention of seemingly every editor that watches my or Praxidicae's talk pages. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was put a relevant video on an encyclopedia article. My hard work was repaid by edit warring and accusations of being disruptive. --Legis Regis (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's slow down a little and look at the timeline.

You added a video, and let's assume good faith in your intentions.
When you were reverted you immediately added it back in, reported the user to the anti-vandalism noticeboard, and reverted her warnings as "complete and utter nonsence" [sic].
When I denied that AIV report, you tell me that I shouldn't "joke around". I'm an admin, I'm allowed to deny pointless AIV reports.

We'll skip the rest, but basically "bugged everyone who commented or otherwise had anything to do with your edits" and now you're saying you're being harassed. This all could have been avoided if you had a) not edit warred, b) not reported someone to AIV for disagreeing with you, and c) having a clue as to who you were talking to and what you were talking about.

I'm all for assuming good faith, and I'm willing to extend a little more, but at the moment you're acting like we're trying to delete Mother Teresa off of Wikipedia when instead we're just trying to get you to not put a pointless (and copyvio) meme on a Wikipedia article. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling.

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 ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because he has retired, so it does not matter. But because I deserve a retirement in dignity, I would like to be left unblocked. I will not edit again if unblocked, but I do not deserve to be disgraced like this. I am a human being. I am worthy of respect..

Legis Regis (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

^{[citation needed]} Nick (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2020 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]