User talk:Scurrilous Knave

January 2017

Hello, I'm IgnorantArmies. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GAB^gab 17:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Scurrilous_Knave reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: ). Thank you. GAB^gab 18:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Samsara 19:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

My edits were a much-needed, reliably-sourced, glorious counterpoint to the overwhelming pro-Trump rah-rah-rah cheerleading bias shown on this encylopedia hitherto. I should be awarded the "Best New Editor" award, rather than blocked. Further, I suspect the editor who hounded me mercilessly until I was blocked is one of those paid Russiam trolls I read about in the recent intelligence report. Free me from this prison, and let us make this Encyclopedia great again.Scurrilous Knave (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=My edits were a much-needed, reliably-sourced, glorious counterpoint to the overwhelming pro-Trump rah-rah-rah cheerleading bias shown on this encylopedia hitherto. I should be awarded the "Best New Editor" award, rather than blocked. Further, I suspect the editor who hounded me mercilessly until I was blocked is one of those paid Russiam trolls I read about in the recent intelligence report. Free me from this prison, and let us make this Encyclopedia great again.[[User:Scurrilous Knave|Scurrilous Knave]] ([[User talk:Scurrilous Knave#top|talk]]) 00:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=My edits were a much-needed, reliably-sourced, glorious counterpoint to the overwhelming pro-Trump rah-rah-rah cheerleading bias shown on this encylopedia hitherto. I should be awarded the "Best New Editor" award, rather than blocked. Further, I suspect the editor who hounded me mercilessly until I was blocked is one of those paid Russiam trolls I read about in the recent intelligence report. Free me from this prison, and let us make this Encyclopedia great again.[[User:Scurrilous Knave|Scurrilous Knave]] ([[User talk:Scurrilous Knave#top|talk]]) 00:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=My edits were a much-needed, reliably-sourced, glorious counterpoint to the overwhelming pro-Trump rah-rah-rah cheerleading bias shown on this encylopedia hitherto. I should be awarded the "Best New Editor" award, rather than blocked. Further, I suspect the editor who hounded me mercilessly until I was blocked is one of those paid Russiam trolls I read about in the recent intelligence report. Free me from this prison, and let us make this Encyclopedia great again.[[User:Scurrilous Knave|Scurrilous Knave]] ([[User talk:Scurrilous Knave#top|talk]]) 00:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}