You're suppose to bring your concerns to the talkpage of the article-in-question. Not edit war for what you want. GoodDay ( talk) 22:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Barack Obama, you may be
blocked from editing.
Drmies (
talk) 01:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for
inappropriate discussions.
Acroterion
(talk) 01:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
-
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
George Floyd protests.
Kire1975 (
talk) 01:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- What's inappropriate discussions? not repeating the same political views Wikipedia wants me to? Cawseases ( talk) 01:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Kire1975 (
talk) 01:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 01:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Cawseases ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
First, that shows a failure to assume good faith. Second, all your edits up till this one were perfectly fine, if a little cranky. Then they went off the cliff. What changed? Maybe you don't want to say, maybe you don't even really know. In any event, doing that sort of thing in a contentious topic area exposes you to stricter sanctions, and that's what happened. — Daniel Case ( talk) 06:33, 24 May 2023 (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.
Failure to assume good faith? That's a bit ironic, isn't it?
You're suppose to bring your concerns to the talkpage of the article-in-question. Not edit war for what you want. GoodDay ( talk) 22:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Barack Obama, you may be
blocked from editing.
Drmies (
talk) 01:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for
inappropriate discussions.
Acroterion
(talk) 01:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
-
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
George Floyd protests.
Kire1975 (
talk) 01:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- What's inappropriate discussions? not repeating the same political views Wikipedia wants me to? Cawseases ( talk) 01:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Kire1975 (
talk) 01:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 01:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Cawseases ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
First, that shows a failure to assume good faith. Second, all your edits up till this one were perfectly fine, if a little cranky. Then they went off the cliff. What changed? Maybe you don't want to say, maybe you don't even really know. In any event, doing that sort of thing in a contentious topic area exposes you to stricter sanctions, and that's what happened. — Daniel Case ( talk) 06:33, 24 May 2023 (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.
Failure to assume good faith? That's a bit ironic, isn't it?