User talk:155.33.134.29

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: It's not a test edit. Flatulence is a legitimate use for the word "toots" and there's no way you're unaware of that. I don't know why you insist on repeatedly removing it other than you being on some weird power trip because you regularly edit Wikipedia. 155.33.134.29 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie:

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

There is no legitimate reason for me to be blocked. I added a legitimate definition to a disambiguation page, an administrator repeatedly removed it and threatened to block me for "test edits" and "vandalism". The administrator in question has refused to communicate why what I did is worthy of a block, probably because it's not. This is a little ridiculous.

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=There is no legitimate reason for me to be blocked. I added a legitimate definition to a disambiguation page, an administrator repeatedly removed it and threatened to block me for "test edits" and "vandalism". The administrator in question has refused to communicate why what I did is worthy of a block, probably because it's not. This is a little ridiculous. |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=There is no legitimate reason for me to be blocked. I added a legitimate definition to a disambiguation page, an administrator repeatedly removed it and threatened to block me for "test edits" and "vandalism". The administrator in question has refused to communicate why what I did is worthy of a block, probably because it's not. This is a little ridiculous. |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=There is no legitimate reason for me to be blocked. I added a legitimate definition to a disambiguation page, an administrator repeatedly removed it and threatened to block me for "test edits" and "vandalism". The administrator in question has refused to communicate why what I did is worthy of a block, probably because it's not. This is a little ridiculous. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

155.33.134.29 (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)