User talk:LeeMarx

Sorry, my bad, you are right. rsssf says kilingi-nõmme. Cheked from Spordileht. Klõps (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No worries, carry on the good work. :) --LeeMarx (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

2006 cup team. Klõps (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Dmitrijevi pole seal :( 2005/2006 karikamängudest ma leidsin kõikide mängude koosseisud peale FC TVMK 10:0 FC Toompea (esimene voor), ning ta polnud üheski. Ilmselt ei mänginud ta ka esimeses voorus, kuna oli duubel meeskonna põhitegija! --LeeMarx (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:GS/RUSUKR, as you are not extended confirmed you cannot edit articles with content about Russia-Ukraine war. Mellk (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Please dont come to me with that bullshit. Thank you. Nobody was attacked. --LeeMarx (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Since you have already alerted them about CTs, is this a blockable offense? Mellk (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like Kreml has really invested into wikipedia :D Go ahead and block, useful idiot. --LeeMarx (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, funny how you want to block someone for writing in "Talk" page. Pathetic attempt to silence critics. Only your point of view matters :D --LeeMarx (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. This is linked at the top, but sure, if you do not want to take any accountability and insist on being blocked... Mellk (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

How much Kreml paying you? Asking for a friend ;) --LeeMarx (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

LeeMarx, do not make things worse. Think before you write. Ivo (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I havent edited any pages. Just ONE question asked in TALK page and rest in my TALK page. But guess I am terrorist for some Kreml people, so I get ban :D --LeeMarx (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#LeeMarx and aspersions casting at your service. Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48h for harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. 

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Directly accusing other editors of being paid editors, especially of being paid editors for state propaganda, is simply not on. Wikipedia is not a place to right great historical wrongs. I'd suggest a good read-through of policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:UPE, and WP:CONSENSUS before appealing this block to Arbcom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

People like you are reason why nobody takes wikipedia serious anymore. Shame on you!--LeeMarx (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to appeal my indefinite block.

I understand that my comments on the talk pages violated Wikipedia’s civility and no personal attacks policies. Accusing other editors of being paid or acting in bad faith was inappropriate, regardless of my frustration at the time. I acknowledge that such remarks undermine constructive discussion.

I assure the administrators that if unblocked, I will focus strictly on content and sources, avoid comments about other editors’ motives, and adhere fully to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I am willing to stay away from contentious topic areas if necessary and to rebuild trust through constructive editing.

Thank you for considering my appeal. LeeMarx (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We do not consider chatbot-generated requests. GPTZero score: 100%. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

---

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.