Enough of this behavior. Personal attacks are incendiary and you keep trying to push beyond the boundaries.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

BH seems to have disappeared. Could someone explain to me why I'm blocked, (and for a week no less), so I may perhaps craft an appropriate appeal? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 18:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for personal attack, just like you were twice in the past; the length of such blocks escalates each time, since the point didn't seem to have gotten through. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:05, 24 November 2015 (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.

By the way, you may not removed declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may not remove declined unblock requests. If you do so again, your talk page access will be removed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a week is necessary. Yes, I made one edit summary comment that could be construed as an insult, but could also be construed as a fact. It was made in the face multiple, ongoing attacks and insults by the editor I had replied to ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). That same editor also only received a week. There is a disparity in the punishment being handed out here. But I don't really expect any different from the admins here lately. - ^theWOLFchild 20:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thewolfchild. I've been watching your edits since the day you registered. You started with a block, and an "ok, bud, you wait till the block is done and we'll have it out" sort of thing. An admin talked to you and helped you understand how things work here. Then you were fine, for ages. You are a good editor but are slipping back into that. Please choose the best path for yourself. Your aim is to have articles the way you think they should best be. So, play cleverly. Vinegar is self-poison. Honey, more honey, manners, reason, discussion and more honey, those get you what you want. Please try, okay? We need you. Please don't go astray and end up getting booted off the project. Please?

Oh, and good news: If you are dealing with a rude editor, then your strategy is honey. No better way to get rid of an enemy than to sit pretty and make contrast. You are nice, he is nasty, all eyes are on him. He ends up in peril, not you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Anna, for the advice and kind words. I can hardly wait to see what you post on Cass's talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 23:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome. :) As for posting on Cass's page, well, Ritchie333 and others already communicate with him. Plus, he is watched more than you, and so is his user talk. And User:Cassianto is reading this. Since my message is not meant to castigate but rather to help, it doesn't really matter where it is posted. Besides, wouldn't you prefer that Cassianto persist with vinegar while you ooze honey? But fine, for the sake of efficiency, I'll say it here: Cassianto, please, for your sake, try to out-honey Thewolfchild. We have all been around long enough to know that nastiness satisfies emotional needs while interferring with our ultimate goal. Since you are both now blocked from influencing articles, I'd say that is evident.

By the way, here in China, the first person to lose their cool, loses everything. Their lashing out reveals that they have been affected emotionally. They have lost face. Be like one of those cool lawyers. Never insult or show anger. Cooly, slay them with your brain. Nothing is more satisfying. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, Cassianto might take that as a slight, since he is the one that "lost his cool" first (and repeatedly). Anyway, I really have (and had) no interest in interacting with him, which why I largely ignored most of his obnoxious and insulting comments (and why he probably felt the need to directly interfere on other users talk pages to get my attention). It's unfortunately the way things went, after what should've been a minor content improvement on the Skyfall page. I'm not here for this sort of juvenile nonsense, as you've pointed out, it's been years since I've run into any these problems. I'll take the week off, (unless some admin comes to their senses and reduces it to a day or two... or three), and when I return I'll have forgotten all about Cassianto and his little clique and just go back to the areas I was working on before. - ^theWOLFchild 00:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: - Don't suppose you'd care to unblock me for just, say... 10 minutes? Just enough time to respond to all the nonsense at this WP:AN posting? - ^theWOLFchild 23:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: - Actually, I'd still like to know; Can you explain what you mean by you keep trying to push beyond the boundaries? It sounds like I'm guilty of multiple, repetitive actions, whereas I'm only aware of the one you cited. - ^theWOLFchild 23:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are using talk page to make jabs at the same person they were blocked for bickering with I have removed your talk page access. If you wish to dispute this block you can use WP:UTRS. HighInBC 00:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]