User talk:Fanboi123

October 2019[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ruthin School, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. It is also vastly inappropriate for you to claim you're fixing errors while engaging in this behavior. DonIago (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ruthin School, you may be blocked from editing. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ruthin School. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ruthin School. Bad sources and failure to remain neutral are not going to help your cause. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthin School[edit]

[1]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Fanboi123 (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Fanboi123 reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: ). Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

appeal the block[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).

Fanboi123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am trying to provide credible information of Ruthin School. I am not being destructive or vandalise Wikipedia. I am a new to this community and not familiar with your rules.

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:54, 10 October 2019 (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.

In addition to the edit-warring - which is not addressed in the above appeal - I have also had to delete most of your edits from the article's history due to blatant copyright violations. You will need to address both of these issues in any future unblock appeal. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]