User talk:74.73.106.239

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Nancy Reagan page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Happyme22 (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

No I am cleaning up the article from anons like yourself who have flooded it with poor info, POV, and vandalism! Please stop! Happyme22 (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am asking you to stop for the good of this article. There is nothing POV about the page; it is very neutral. Happyme22 (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Jmlk17 08:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Jmlk17 08:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

{{unblock|As you suggested, I tried several times to discuss this issue on HappyTalk22's talk page, my own talk page, as well as by requesting the article be locked from changes. I don't believe this was a fair block and as you undid my edits and not HappyTalk22's edits to the Nancy Reagan page, that this block itself is based in bias.}}

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

So wait a minute, just so I understand, I edited the article as I saw necessary and as fair to reflect NPOV, and HappyTalk22 undit my edits without discussing them. Repeatedly. To the point where user Jmlk17 has undid my edits in a biased manned, and blacked me as such. Yet, I am the one who is still blocked from editing (or even discussing) the article while it is featured? (Yes, an hour later and I'm still blocked, even though you said I have been unblocked.) And your response is that "there is no deadline"? And HappyTalk22 and Jmlk17 are NOT blocked at all? Riduculous.

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=So wait a minute, just so I understand, I edited the article as I saw necessary and as fair to reflect NPOV, and HappyTalk22 undit my edits without discussing them. Repeatedly. To the point where user Jmlk17 has undid my edits in a biased manned, and blacked me as such. Yet, I am the one who is <b>still </b> blocked from editing (or even discussing) the article while it is featured? (Yes, an hour later and I'm still blocked, even though you said I have been unblocked.) And your response is that "there is no deadline"? And HappyTalk22 and Jmlk17 are NOT blocked at all? Riduculous. |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=So wait a minute, just so I understand, I edited the article as I saw necessary and as fair to reflect NPOV, and HappyTalk22 undit my edits without discussing them. Repeatedly. To the point where user Jmlk17 has undid my edits in a biased manned, and blacked me as such. Yet, I am the one who is <b>still </b> blocked from editing (or even discussing) the article while it is featured? (Yes, an hour later and I'm still blocked, even though you said I have been unblocked.) And your response is that "there is no deadline"? And HappyTalk22 and Jmlk17 are NOT blocked at all? Riduculous. |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=So wait a minute, just so I understand, I edited the article as I saw necessary and as fair to reflect NPOV, and HappyTalk22 undit my edits without discussing them. Repeatedly. To the point where user Jmlk17 has undid my edits in a biased manned, and blacked me as such. Yet, I am the one who is <b>still </b> blocked from editing (or even discussing) the article while it is featured? (Yes, an hour later and I'm still blocked, even though you said I have been unblocked.) And your response is that "there is no deadline"? And HappyTalk22 and Jmlk17 are NOT blocked at all? Riduculous. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

---