User talk:D.H.110

Currently I have been blocked through no fault of my own so please ignore the warnings and blocks while I try to get the issue sorted D.H.110 (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Varga RMI-1 X/H) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Varga RMI-1 X/H, D.H.110!

Wikipedia editor TheLongTone just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Intersting. Looking at you talk page, I do hope your username is not an ill omen (the Farnborough show crash, 1952)

To reply, leave a comment on TheLongTone's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

TheLongTone (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation articles[edit]

Hi DH, nice article on the RMI, a significant aircraft despite not having flown. To make your life easier when writing aviation articles there is a template for article creation at Template:WPAVIATION creator which takes the hard work out of the equation and leaves you with a standardised format. Check it out.--Petebutt (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Regarding you edit here. Nothing is going to happen, but you really shouldn't edit once it's been archived. It will likely be used against you though, if there's similar complaints. Nfitz (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polemic[edit]

This polemic is not necessary, and topic bans apply to all pages, not just articles. If you restore it, you run the risk of getting blocked again. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been editing Trans bashing. As I have got zero confidence in you being able to abstain yourself from editing gender articles despite us telling you not to, you are blocked, this time indefinitely. As before, you can file an unblock request by putting {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on this talk page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

D.H.110 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the reason I edited the page was I had left behind a citation of a part that I had deleted it was not disruptive and I will not violate the ban again

Decline reason:

If it was only that, maybe. But it wasn't. Yamla (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2017 (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 also added this polemic back to your user page, which I would invite the reviewing administrator to review closely. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

D.H.110 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the edit I made that broke the ban was not disruptive it was just cleaning up an earlier edit of mine and I will remove the statement that offends some people from my talk page.

Decline reason:

A violation of a ban does nto have to be disruptive, it only has to exist. Since you repeated the edit to your userpage just now, I have removed your access. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 14 March 2017 (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.

the editor Grayfell has removed my last edit on white privilege stating I backdoor edited it I did no such thing it was made before the ban. D.H.110 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was backdoor editorializing, which is different. Sneaking-in editorializing content as though it were conventional fact is totally inappropriate, regardless of your current status. Grayfell (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)#[reply]

the sources stated that there was criticism of the theoryD.H.110 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why have I been blocked from editing the talk page if it is because of the user page I said I would remove it and it was obviously added before I was banned not while — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.105.153 (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because you carried on discussing the rights and wrongs of your 'white privilege' edit? And you should use WP:UTRS for subsequent appeals I'm afraid. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

D.H.110 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have said I am willing to remove the comment from my user page that might offend some people and my violation of the ban was unintentional and not in any way damaging and I promise to abide by the rules of Wikipedia from now on

Decline reason:

You have been told to use UTRS for subsequent unblock requests. The block applies to you as a person, not just this account, and therefore you should not edit anonymously either. I have therefore blocked the IP address from editing. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2017 (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.

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Well done Only.2.genders12345 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Done Comrade[edit]

	The Red Star
	Well done comrade Only.2.genders12345 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of Soviet Aircraft Weapons of ww2 concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of Soviet Aircraft Weapons of ww2, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of Soviet Aircraft Weapons of ww2[edit]

Hello, D.H.110. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Soviet Aircraft Weapons of ww2".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]