User talk:2003:DE:3700:672F:2D28:E41D:12C6:B1E7

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

2003:DE:3700:672F:2D28:E41D:12C6:B1E7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

@Theknightwho, @This, that and the other, @PUC, @J3133, @Thadh, @Vininn126, @Fytcha, @BigDom, @Fenakhay, @Kutchkutch, @Pulimaiyi, @Imetsia, @Erutuon, @Mnemosientje, @Surjection, @PseudoSkull, @Koavf, @Vorziblix, @Justinrleung, @AryamanA, @Dixtosa, @kiwima, @Gamren, @Sgconlaw, @DTLHS, @Benwing, @JohnC5, @Mx. Granger, @Wikitiki89, @Chuck Entz.

unjust block in error; no edit of mine was vandalism. In contrary, reverts like this, this and this are rather vandalism:

• [1]: The alt form does exist and even has an entry: Adventkalender.
• [2]: Petrus, as the entry Petrus states, is derived from Πέτρος (Pétros) and not petra. Thus it's only a related and not a derived term.
• [3]: "head=" param is needed as else there would be an incorrect link in the header; Kathedra is an existing related term.

Edits like this were already explained in here: What's given as "1611, The Holy Bible, […] (King James Version)," is often not 1611 KJB, but something else – whatever it may be, it doesn't really matter –, and at least year or work are wrong, possibly both are. (It's comparable to e.g. stating to quote 1545 Luther but instead quoting 1912 revised Luther or even stuff like Einheitsübersetzung.) Additionally, sometimes even the formatting was wrong as in [4].