User talk:Notabotnotalib

November 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Katie Hobbs. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Andre🚐 18:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Muboshgu. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This political hack took down information that is verifiable and publicly available. His editing rights should be suspended Notabotnotalib (talk) 16:19, 18 November 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 ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I edited a page with verifiable, publicly available information and it was taken out and page was locked. If you want to be a neutral platform, you have can’t just edit out unfavorable information that hurts your sideNotabotnotalib (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The specific edit here that was the most concerning clearly violated WP:BLP. And to double down on it with this crap, yeah, no. Block is clearly warranted. There may be a path for you to get unblocked but you'll need to demonstrate you understand why your behaviour resulted, correctly, in you getting blocked. Yamla (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2022 (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.

There is clearly an attempt by this user to have bias on wiki. Your credibility is zero Notabotnotalib (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]