User talk:Wtqf

Florence Griffith Joyner

What was the problem with my edit?--Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit are you referring to and why do you think I had a problem with it? I just undid all the edits by people making nonsensical claims, which you had also partially undone. Wtqf (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you, among these edits, undid my entire edit as well. I started a topic at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1972 Formula One season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Watkins Glen. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Best known for IP per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 12:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

That is extraordinary. Edits I have made which hugely improved the quality of articles have triggered someone who describes them as "The usual aggressive copyediting". Just what kind of insanity is it when someone is blocked specifically for improving articles? If you can find any edit I made that clearly degraded the quality of an article, do point it out. Wtqf (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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=That is extraordinary. Edits I have made which ''hugely'' improved the quality of articles have triggered someone who describes them as "''The usual aggressive copyediting''". Just what kind of insanity is it when someone is blocked '''specifically''' for improving articles? If you can find any edit I made that clearly degraded the quality of an article, do point it out. [[User:Wtqf|Wtqf]] ([[User talk:Wtqf#top|talk]]) 13:27, 13 August 2021 (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=That is extraordinary. Edits I have made which ''hugely'' improved the quality of articles have triggered someone who describes them as "''The usual aggressive copyediting''". Just what kind of insanity is it when someone is blocked '''specifically''' for improving articles? If you can find any edit I made that clearly degraded the quality of an article, do point it out. [[User:Wtqf|Wtqf]] ([[User talk:Wtqf#top|talk]]) 13:27, 13 August 2021 (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=That is extraordinary. Edits I have made which ''hugely'' improved the quality of articles have triggered someone who describes them as "''The usual aggressive copyediting''". Just what kind of insanity is it when someone is blocked '''specifically''' for improving articles? If you can find any edit I made that clearly degraded the quality of an article, do point it out. [[User:Wtqf|Wtqf]] ([[User talk:Wtqf#top|talk]]) 13:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}