User talk:Iţðript

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).

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

Request reason:

I have not found my edits of the hex code for orange to be sufficiently disruptive enough to warrant a permanent block. After I introduced the topic of Orange's hex code being an inaccurate shade and inconsistent with how it is defined as a tertiary colour (in RGB) and as a complentary colour of azure, I received a reply unrelated to the topic I posted and so I removed it. Iţðript (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obviously abusive behavior at Talk:Orange (colour). --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:46, 16 July 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.

If there is content irrelevant to the subject a wikipedia article is about, it is removed to keep the article consistent in what topics it covers. The same is true for introduced topics on an article's talk page and does not constitute abusive behavior, it is in fact a justified action to keep a talk page topic in line with the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iţðript (talk • contribs)

You have been repetitively edit warring on that page (as well as other color related articles) for years, and you had recently been blocked as an IP. Noting that you did not have the right to open the talk page discussion in the first place (because you were evading a block) was not irrelevant, and deleting that comment more than a dozen times was clearly abusive. - MrOllie (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that I've been edit warring "for years" is a gross exaggeration of sparse single edits that I did not contest in lieu of the counter-edits having justified reasoning. The page for the colour orange had the correctly assigned hex code for years (FF8000 or FF7F00) before disruptive edits were made to alter it to a web colour (FFA500), when later in the article it is stated to be complementary to Azure (0080FF) which is contradictory to the hex code on the intro of the article now. In the article Orange is stated to be a tertiary colour which is a mixture of Red (FF0000) and Yellow (FFFF00) which an exact mixture yields (FF7F00) or (FF8000). This is a good faith edit that restores the consistency of the old version of the article. If Remeneses had wanted to discuss the validity of posting the topic in the talk section, it would only have been appropriate to do so on my talk page.