Your username appears to be attacking another user, is that the case? nableezy - 14:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rose City Antifa. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CIreland ( talk) 21:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to engage in subtle vandalism by making unexplained changes to information, as you did at Rose City Antifa, you may be blocked from editing. DSQ ( talk) 08:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. DSQ ( talk) 08:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. RolandR ( talk) 23:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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:
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.
Bishonen | tålk 12:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
When you wrote "The othe rposters put objections by aPOV supporter of Antifa." Your poor grammar makes it hard to understand. Do you mean that User:Bobfrombrockley and I were putting forward objections from a supporter of Antifa? Or? And Fox News is anything but the leading news organisation. In fact we generally avoid using it, especially for politics, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC
I am being attacked for putting edits on the talk page and one correction on Rose City Antifa which I backed up by facts. These edits have all been back up by facts.
Fox News, the Jerusalem Post are not? The leading U.S News network and the newspaper of record for Israel. Unselfstudier ( talk) 22:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
You may avoid using it. But it a legitimate source. Unselfstudier ( talk) 22:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Unselfstudier [1] Can you please clarify who you are referring to in your comments on the UNHRC talk page - "Wikipedia allows an anti semitic groups to determine issues"?
Also could you confirm whether you have had a Wikipedia account prior to your current one? Appreciated. Thank you, DSQ ( talk) 03:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Actoreon there is such a requirement and an administrator is not suppose to block someone without discussing other way to resolve. I can only assume that this is because all of you (I check your posts) disagree with me.. Unselfstudier ( talk) 07:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username is a clear violation of Wikipedia's username policy – it obviously attacks or impersonates another person, and suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as
trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to
appeal this block – read our
guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}}
Cullen328 ( talk) 04:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Unselfstudier ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am being blocked for a user name? It seem this is an excuse to get rid of me I have been threatend by administrators so this is obvious a breaking of the rules. No one discussed. If you check the talk pages several posters are attacking me. But Cullen328 never contacted me, which the administrator is required to do. Unselfstudier ( talk) 21:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As Doug Weller points out there is no such requirement. You are clearly trying to stir up a conflict with Selfstudier, and you seem bent on attacking anyone who dares to question your editing or username. Unblock requests that do not address your own conduct are not considered. Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 10 September 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.
Who is Selfstudier? All I know is he revertred one of my edits? I am the one being attacked. Look at the page.
Cullen according to the link Iposted you are. But please tell me what on my talk pages is so disruptive other than it alienates people who have the opposite view. According to Wikipedia rules Administrators are not support to ban someone without looking at other way to resolve conflict. Did you even look at the pages I edited , they well well thought out arguments. Unselfstudier ( talk) 22:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Might be easier if you did not have administrators blocking editors because they disagree with them. Unselfstudier ( talk) 17:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Your username appears to be attacking another user, is that the case? nableezy - 14:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rose City Antifa. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CIreland ( talk) 21:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to engage in subtle vandalism by making unexplained changes to information, as you did at Rose City Antifa, you may be blocked from editing. DSQ ( talk) 08:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. DSQ ( talk) 08:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. RolandR ( talk) 23:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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:
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.
Bishonen | tålk 12:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
When you wrote "The othe rposters put objections by aPOV supporter of Antifa." Your poor grammar makes it hard to understand. Do you mean that User:Bobfrombrockley and I were putting forward objections from a supporter of Antifa? Or? And Fox News is anything but the leading news organisation. In fact we generally avoid using it, especially for politics, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC
I am being attacked for putting edits on the talk page and one correction on Rose City Antifa which I backed up by facts. These edits have all been back up by facts.
Fox News, the Jerusalem Post are not? The leading U.S News network and the newspaper of record for Israel. Unselfstudier ( talk) 22:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
You may avoid using it. But it a legitimate source. Unselfstudier ( talk) 22:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Unselfstudier [1] Can you please clarify who you are referring to in your comments on the UNHRC talk page - "Wikipedia allows an anti semitic groups to determine issues"?
Also could you confirm whether you have had a Wikipedia account prior to your current one? Appreciated. Thank you, DSQ ( talk) 03:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Actoreon there is such a requirement and an administrator is not suppose to block someone without discussing other way to resolve. I can only assume that this is because all of you (I check your posts) disagree with me.. Unselfstudier ( talk) 07:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username is a clear violation of Wikipedia's username policy – it obviously attacks or impersonates another person, and suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as
trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to
appeal this block – read our
guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}}
Cullen328 ( talk) 04:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Unselfstudier ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am being blocked for a user name? It seem this is an excuse to get rid of me I have been threatend by administrators so this is obvious a breaking of the rules. No one discussed. If you check the talk pages several posters are attacking me. But Cullen328 never contacted me, which the administrator is required to do. Unselfstudier ( talk) 21:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As Doug Weller points out there is no such requirement. You are clearly trying to stir up a conflict with Selfstudier, and you seem bent on attacking anyone who dares to question your editing or username. Unblock requests that do not address your own conduct are not considered. Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 10 September 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.
Who is Selfstudier? All I know is he revertred one of my edits? I am the one being attacked. Look at the page.
Cullen according to the link Iposted you are. But please tell me what on my talk pages is so disruptive other than it alienates people who have the opposite view. According to Wikipedia rules Administrators are not support to ban someone without looking at other way to resolve conflict. Did you even look at the pages I edited , they well well thought out arguments. Unselfstudier ( talk) 22:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Might be easier if you did not have administrators blocking editors because they disagree with them. Unselfstudier ( talk) 17:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)