Jump to content

User talk:50.254.21.213

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

coming from 50.179.239.209

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

July 2015

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Deerbrook Mall (Deerfield, Illinois) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Deerbrook Mall (Deerfield, Illinois) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://triptothemall.blogspot.com/2015/07/deerbrook-mall-is-now-closed.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

it was from a public web site that has no copyright,but is open to all content is backed up by pictures

October 2017

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Miles Edgeworth. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to National Association of Convenience Stores— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. –Miles Edgeworth Talk 00:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

help

[edit]

50.254.21.213 (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to actually ask a question, or no one knows what help you need.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK ! close 50.254.21.213 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Sybil Shearer have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.  
Your edit here to Sybil Shearer was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/morrisonshearer/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Help me!

[edit]

looking for an administrator that is a biographer of non living notable people. 50.254.21.213 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fit that description to some degree, but you haven't said what you need help with. I rather doubt it requires an administrator; maybe you can explain what the problem is? Huon (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your note on my talk but wasn't sure what you wanted. Let me know here if you still need help. SarahSV (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists.

You are editing the person. Then there is the Foundation, which is the foundation that is honoring the two people Neither the domain that you put on the page of nor the facebook are of persion, they are of the foundation. Neither have hence a place on the page, as they are both indirect to the subject. case you start the page about the foundation, then there the official link would be a suitable link, the facebook still fails, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL - it is an official site of the subject there, but we generally list only one, with very rare exceptions to that rule. the foundation was hers’ .. I own a bike, does that make me a bike. You say yourself they are two different things. If you want to serve reader, then you provide thewith correct info, and a page about the foundation. The link is not appropriate, nor the facebook that the bot removed. I clean several pages a day of such myself" 50.254.21.213 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello are you still there ???50.254.21.213 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which article do you want to add a link to? If you show me the article, and let me know which links, I can try to help. You can respond on this page, by the way. No need to respond on my page too. SarahSV (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you look above you will see that a bot came in and took out my link, the rules he pointed me 2 are clear enough but there seemes to be an exception to the rule, somewhere when i went to his talk page he said i was also wrong in putting in the official web site, so he took that out 2

it appears that every thing i do there is someone that says no,

but you in your page "Chelsea Manninge" you put in social media sites and Val Plumwood & Friends is like an offical web site ???

50.254.21.213 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#LINK 50.254.21.213 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has a biography, you can add links to their Twitter or Facebook, but you can't add personal blogs to articles that aren't associated with those blogs. The Chelsea Manning biography contains links to her social-media pages, not to someone's blog that happened to comment on her. Does that help? SarahSV (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes but the bot does not no in the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_Shearer and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Balfour_Morrison

they are dead and like Val Plumwood & Friends they are not her, so there is a fondation web site like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Official_sites50.254.21.213 (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing is to ask (for Sybil Shearer) Beetstra what his objection to the link was, and you can explain whether it's legitimate. I wouldn't base this on Plumwood; that looks like a site that isn't being maintained and I may be about to remove it. SarahSV (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
he maintains the bot, he is just a user you are hire than a user and you do by-o's the bot is automatic and hunts down w_w_w_dot facebook dot com.so how can i you put it back in, where does it say that biography are different, and does that means Ronald regain w_w_w is correct as to the foundation ? 50.254.21.213 (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Shearer link (this one) may be okay. Beetstra removed it, and I've pinged him, so you can discuss it with him when he comments here. SarahSV (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both the facebook and the 'official link' are of the FOUNDATION, not of the person. Both do not belong here. The official website belongs on the Morrison-Shearer Foundation page, which is a different subject. There very well may NOT be suitable official pages for a subject, and there is nothing wrong with that. Please do not use WP:OTHERLINKS-arguments (although the remarks are for spammers, some of them are generally true), maybe other pages are wrong too (for Ronald Reagan, see Ronald_Reagan_Presidential_Library, I think that is where the official link belongs (and is duplicated), not on Ronald Reagan as an 'official site'; For Chelsea Manning I have removed the excess, the twitter there is here official website as there does not seem to be a higher level one). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Helen Balfour Morrison have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Information icon Your edit here to Helen Balfour Morrison was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.350276325002474.98207.350145101682263&type=3) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Update

[edit]

Hi, so the links to the foundation are now on those two pages. The Facebook link has been removed. There is currently a question as to why the bot removed so many of your edits; it probably ought not to have done that. That's the current situation. I'll post another update here when I know why the bot acted as it did. SarahSV (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "While I sympathise with the IP's frustration here, the bottom line is that, due to linkspam, IP/new users are not allowed to add social media links to pages, enforced by XLinkBot. As noted, the links of the subject are acceptable, but they have to be placed by an autoconfirmed user. It's unfortunate, but that's how it is, and appealing to WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't change it. I suspect WP:VPP would be the place to propose either allowing IP users to add social media links, or to ban them altogether; beyond that it's a case of content and that's not something ANI adjuciates." The Bushranger 23:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

50.254.21.213 (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, that's the position regarding social-media links. But the bot reverted more than that in your case. I'll post an update when I know more myself. There's no need to keep posting on my talk page, by the way. I can see when you write something here. SarahSV (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

50.254.21.213 (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i know the people involved and made that discloser but i did not put in the external links and the foram said they could stay http://www.morrisonshearer.org/ http://www.morrisonshearer.org/abo.html you said you put them back.

Can you say more about what the people who asked you to do this wanted you to do? SarahSV (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

they did not ask i took it on my own to fix cites a punctuation that is all i have done and changed some wording that mached newspapers ect.50.254.21.213 (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the reply. It would be a good idea for you to edit something else now instead of focusing on those articles. This has caused a big expenditure of volunteer time, and it isn't worth it for the sake of a couple of external links. SarahSV (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • people have stepped in to fix my mistakes but people have come out of the woodwork to changled me because they are big time editors
  • Be bold can be explained in three words: "Go for it". The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia50.254.21.213 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: 50.254.21.213 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've laid down a wall of text here, on The Bushranger's page, Sarah's page, my talk page, plus pinging us all a dozen times or more. Time to give it a rest. You've already admitted a conflict of interest, and I've already noted that it is clouding your judgement. It is becoming disruptive. Policy is pretty clear about external links, and bludgeoning us with your point of view isn't winning you any friends. Sarah is correct that you need to go edit something else. No good will come from you continuing to hammer us on this one particular issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

[edit]

Information icon Hello, 50.254.21.213. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Sybil Shearer, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. NZFC(talk) 02:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Teahouse talkback: You've got messages!

[edit]
It's easier to know what you're responding to if you don't delete the message. I didn't know whether you had read the response on the Teahouse.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 50.254.21.213. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]
  • i did not get it,is it the links, that would be forum shopping, i am being page stalked and did not want to bring my troubles over there.
Now that I've checked what you were doing before going to The Teahouse. Unless you changed IPs, you had no edits for two months before that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
so what is the ? and no same IP50.254.21.213 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You said "i want to add to an article but other editors come in and undo and not talk on page of the article. on there link. In reading this page there is to many in fighting going."— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_disruption_from_IP_50.254.21.213

Got it. I don't know if MarnetteD needs to get involved here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_Shearer
  • i read the page and thought that the cites did not belong but i did not replace them, right away they were from the newspaper that the article was cut and pasted from the last edit was in April but within seconds someone from out of know where i guess i was reverted in the middle of my 2nd edit i guess stuff was being taken out. that is 2 people editing at once not noting it was happening to me.
(cur | prev) 23:05, 3 January 2018‎ 50.254.21.213 (talk)‎ . . (7,350 bytes) (-487)‎ . . (fixted ref_not payed fondation50.254.21.213 (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)) (undo) (Tag: references removed)
(cur | prev) 23:07, 3 January 2018‎ Metiscus (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,837 bytes) (+487)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by 50.254.21.213 (talk). (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 23:15, 3 January 2018‎ 50.254.21.213 (talk)‎ . . (7,350 bytes) (-487)‎ . .
  • i fixed everthing what was wrong and added what was missing and corrected links and ref. 50.254.21.213 (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)) (undo) (Tag: references removed)
(cur | prev) 23:17, 3 January 2018‎ Metiscus (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,837 bytes) (+487)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by 50.254.21.213 (talk). (TW)) (undo)
  • so that is when i went to the tea room and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NZ_Footballs_Conscience#Sybil_Shearer

  • came on board to fix everything i was trying to do and more.
(cur | prev) 00:43, 4 January 2018‎ NZ Footballs Conscience (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,146 bytes) (+309)‎ . . (→‎Later life and death: Added reference) (undo) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sybil_Shearer&offset=&limit=500&action=history
  • and it was a good working relationship until (this is a biography page) I as an IP attempted to add there facebook page as in other biographyand a bot within seconds took it out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:50.254.21.213#January_2018
  • so i inquired on the talk page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XLinkBot#Sybil_Shearer,_The_Morrison-Shearer_Foundation
  • where i was berated by the bot user
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XLinkBot#Sybil_Shearer,_The_Morrison-Shearer_Foundation
  • who only sees his point of view with a vicious attitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Dirk+Beetstra&prefix=Wikipedia%3AExternal+links%2FNoticeboard%2F&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=4ag97p8mpk1zh6kpsp310ujlt
  • then all hell broke out and he went into the two page and took down the other web links,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Balfour_Morrison

WP: FORUMSHOP and consensus

[edit]

Hi IP, I can see you have been contacting a number of users since you weren't allowed to post the foundation as external links. A heads up this is called forum shopping and is discouraged. You're likely to just end up annoying the other users you are contacting. People aren't "ganging" up on you, it's just because you posted on Tea House and then the incidents board. All that does is mean other users see it and some decide they are going to join in and edit or join in on the discussions. I did work well with you before and we can going forward, I just disagree with you about the foundation as an external link. Also another hint, just because it is does somewhere else on another article, doesn't mean it's right on the one you are working on. What you need to do is get consensus, to do this, you post on the articles talk page why you think it should be allowed then others discuss. It's not a vote so three to one doesn't mean you are right or I am right, but it's about the argument for and what matches existing policies. I can understand your frustration with not being able to edit on the Morrison page, you can either post on the talk page stuff you would like changed (you can still post on talk pages when articles are protected) or wait until the page protection expires. Any questions, please don't come to my talk page. We can either discuss here or on the relevant article talk pages. NZFC(talk) 05:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i feel it is inappropriate for this to be here and like other i do not revert.
  • you forget these 2 pages were copyright infringed,and had not been touched since april and deleted at one time, cut and pasted from the newspapers with no sites and false information Canadian or American, northbrook or Evanston, 16 or 17.Shearer died November 6, 1984.the bot took out facebook where the forum said it was allowed,the bots user took out the links that had been there for years consensus on other like pages say the foundation is allowed it is you that is being difficult the ronald regan page and others like it prove the point and this comes from the sites in the ANI,The Bushranger said it he should put it back SlimVirgin has it on her edits she could put it back, there are too many Talk page stalker out there.if you have an external relationship with someone that works for "Capital Football" the hot dog guy,booth announcers somebody that works there is that going to be conflict of interest. i do not think so.you have berated me on my own talk page,and the article talk page, all those stalkers are now contacting me and harassing me this is all your doing and as you said we work well together you need to know the subject mater in this case 2 notable persons that is not me, i just did site sourcing.i live here they were a mile away but i did not now them i never even heard of them till i met Toby.

50.254.21.213 (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being polite here and realise at times that Wikipedia can be a frustrating place but if I were you I'd choose your battles. I'm happy to remove the Conflict of Interest tags but from everything you wrote it appeared you had one and I just ignored putting it on your page before. Ignoring that though, As said countless times just because something is on another page doesn't mean you can do it on yours. Both Bushranger and SlimVirgin said yes but reading the discussions it appears they misunderstood what you were asking. I note that Bushranger has since said that the foundation shouldn't be in the external links. Also as you've been told, bring it to the articles talk pages. Have the discussions there and if others come and agree with you it can be changed.
If information got removed by the bot and you didn't get it put back before page was protected. I'm happy to put it back in the meantime if you like. You just have to realise that you have to work with others on Wikipedia and sometimes you can't get what you want every time because others feel different. NZFC(talk) 07:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • you miss one of the points,i go to a page i make an edit, 2 minutes later another editor comes in and reverts it in 2 minutes they could not have seen what i did there, it is like a bot but a person, at the same time that is being done i am back on the page reviewing my edit not seeing the revert and continue editing it happens again, so i go to the teahouse and get you when nobody else was doing the page and comes in looks at the page sees what i am trying to do and fixes it all on a page that has been copyright infringed with a help me template and has just been sitting there being ignored by everybody until an IP steps in then a bot comes in because of facebook and i go to the talk page and the bot user comes back and takes out all links on both pages, but leaves Ronald ragan page alone. even thought in his opition it should be gone. i go to forums who say facebook is ok but do nothing about it then slimVirgin comes in who i had gone to for help who gets her page edited by the bot user and she comes back and locks down the page then the bot user comes back and links Morrison-Shearer Foundation to prove his point and out of spite "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Red_link#Avoiding_creation_of_certain_types_of_red_links and in all this controversy you turn on me.50.254.21.213 (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

[edit]
  • The Bushranger did not say it should be included, you've already been told this and you keep misrepresenting his comments. You are shopping this all over the Wiki, then accusing others of stalking you when you are pinging so many others. You are getting very close to getting blocked under WP:HERE. There will not be any further warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • what are you talking about you have been page stalking? i stop bothering you and this is what i am talking about your not being civil to me.
  • you are harassing, stalking, and know threating me .50.254.21.213 (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive973#External_links
  • "While I sympathise with the IP's frustration here, the bottom line is that, due to linkspam, IP/new users are not allowed to add social media links to pages, enforced by XLinkBot. As noted, the links of the subject are acceptable, but they have to be placed by an autoconfirmed user. It's unfortunate, but that's how it is, and appealing to WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't change it. I suspect WP:VPP would be the place to propose either allowing IP users to add social media links, or to ban them altogether; beyond that it's a case of content and that's not something ANI adjuciates." The Bushrange

50.254.21.213 (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "(I will, however, point to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL as a reminder: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation.)"The Bushrange

50.254.21.213 (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

facebook

[edit]

Template:Facebook

Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Facebook,_MySpace

Notice of ANI discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ongoing disruption from IP 50.254.21.213. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits.
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 ~~~~}}.  Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Refactoring comments

[edit]

Do not refactor comments of others, or even yours if it changes the meaning of the discussions that took place. Striking is acceptable, but only your comments. This isn't "your" talk page. It is a talk page for an IP address. That should clear up your earlier misconception. If you continue, I will remove talk page access. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block changed

[edit]

I've removed talk page access and extended the block. I seriously doubt your ability to participate here in a collegiate way. Being an IP, I generally don't indef block a number, but this should be seen as an indef block, not just the one year I've formally blocked for. That doesn't mean forever, but it does mean that you won't be unblocked until you've demonstrated an ability to understand why you were blocked to begin with, and can explain to the reviewing admin that you have a path forward that is constructive. You are welcome to submit an unblock request to WP:UTRS if you so choose. Since this block is for YOU, not just the IP address, using any other IP or account would be considered sockpuppetry and you would be blocked on sight, so please use the same IP for all correspondences. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.254.21.213&oldid=857900810"