User talk:Breast999A

February 2022

Hello, I'm TartarTorte. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Janice Pottker—because it 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 Help desk. Thanks. TartarTorte 21:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TarterTorte Look. I am here to build a wiki. Not to do vandalism. I do not have any competence of vandalism in my mind right now, ok? Listen to me. I am editing properly. --Breast999A (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at David II of Scotland. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dirkbb (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Paul H. Cress, you may be blocked from editing. Dirkbb (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Beverly Daniel Evans Jr.. Dirkbb (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further vandalism. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 21:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 22:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately creating a sockpuppet when you had got a mere (and well-deserved) one-week block for vandalism was a bad idea. Bishonen | tålk 22:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Breast999A. 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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]