User talk:80.95.104.60

May 2016[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Pointless, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Favonian (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2016 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Everybody has the right to be heard so Acroterion has no right to remove my post in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales . Jimbo has the right to decide whether I was right a not and Acroterion does not have the right to decide for him. I am not asking you (the person reviewing this block) to agree with me that my editing was correct or for you to unblock me on the basis that my edit was correct. All I am asking is for you to reinstate my post so that Jimbo can review my points on its merits and make a decision. It is only fair that I have the right to be heard. In the end, whether he decides I was right or wrong, does not matter to me. What matters to me is that I have a fair opportunity to make my case to him. Thanks. 80.95.104.60 (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits clearly were inappropriate, you edit warred to keep your personal tale in an encyclopedia article, and then you complained when the inappropriateness was pointed out to you. I do not see that unblocking you would benefit the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2016 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I did not ask you to agree that my edits were appropriate. And you did not respond to what I said. Please do so. 80.95.104.60 (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You gave no reason to consider an unblock. Yamla (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2016 (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.

You may not edit-war to post rants in articles and then edit-war to post complaints on Jimbo's talk page about completely appropriate warnings about said rants, far less evade multiple blocks via proxies, nor set conditions. Continued abuse of the unblock process will result in removal of talkpage editing privileges. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not post rants in articles. Everything I posted is true. And Jimbo has the right to decide whether my complaint is appropriate a not, not you or anyone else. 80.95.104.60 (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Biglittlehugesmall65. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Hannah Mouncey have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Biglittlehugesmall65

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

December 2020[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as done at Hannah Mouncey:.

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 ~~~~}}. Mifter (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2020 (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.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.