User talk:68.224.254.163

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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:50, 17 September 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

You did not list a good reason for blocking. Please list a good reason from now on.

Decline reason:

You are another incarnation of User:68.108.23.15, who has been blocked repeatedly and is still currently blocked. Karl Dickman ^talk 02:32, 18 September 2015 (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.

Requests to edit highway articles

FYI, there is a very valid reason why so many Interstate Highway articles (and related articles) are protected. However, it's a long story, and I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to tell it. I, for one, am hesitant to unprotect them given the current situation. However, if you can state here what you would like to place on these articles, that would make me feel better. At a minimum, even if the pages don't get unprotected, myself, or any number of other editors could make the requested changes for you. Cheers, Dave (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply: Some of those pages have no vandalism, they do not need protection. And others have been requested for Pending changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:181:E800:8A63:DFFF:FE96:6313 (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd be very hesitant at changing the protection levels. The vandal has historically not shown any hesitation to jumping to another related, but unprotected, article in the same category. That's why they were all protected together. A few specific articles should not have been in that category to start, but the majority warrant protection in this case. Imzadi 1979 → 04:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Just to let you know, the pages in this request were articles in between Interstate 1 and 50 and others that had small amounts of vandalism.