User talk:Johnjj23jj

December 2023

Hello, I'm Wham2001. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Central Park birdwatching incident seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Wham2001 (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very biased article based on media falsehoods. The articles referenced are not neutral. Johnjj23jj (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Central Park birdwatching incident, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Central Park birdwatching incident, you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page before making these changes again. CodeTalker (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All information was properly cited. There is no "vandalization". Johnjj23jj (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Central Park birdwatching incident. Epicgenius (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The summary is biased and inaccurate. Why would I be blocked for correcting it? Johnjj23jj (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2023 (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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2023 (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).

Johnjj23jj (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here the article is full of errors I was correcting it but people seem to want to push media lies still Johnjj23jj (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If the media has lied about the birdwatching incident, you and Amy Cooper will need to take that up with the media, not us. This isn't the place to wage that battle. You edit warred to preserve your edits, which is unacceptable no matter how correct you think you are. 331dot (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2023 (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.