User talk:LikeGannets

Welcome!

Hello, LikeGannets, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dopenguins. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Rory Kinnear. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Doreen Mantle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Theroadislong (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Gabrielle Blunt. Theroadislong (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 09:03, 11 October 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).

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

Request reason:

Information placed on page is correct and sourced, it is actually the other editors who are vandals, definitely not me. LikeGannets (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have failed to account for your edit warring to insert unsourced or inappropriately sourced material. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 11 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

All information is sourced already, plus it is correct information, so I am really unsure what the problem is. It seems a bit silly that other users continue to delete the correct information and replace it with incorrect, unsourced information. It is clearly those users who really need to be permanently blocked. Why would you want wrong information online? LikeGannets (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The validity or otherwise of the content is entirely irrelevant. This block concerns your behaviour; unblock requests which do not address the behavioural issues will be declined outright. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:09, 11 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

So in other words you promote the uploading of incorrect and unsourced information. Your actions and your support for these vandals shows this. Utterly pathetic. LikeGannets (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Talk page access revoked. Yamla (talk) 11:20, 11 October 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.

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|As mentioned above LikeGannets (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)}[reply]