User talk:Ogibbons

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).

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

Request reason:

Unaware of having done anything that would cause editing to be blocked

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This account is not blocked. If you are unable to edit, please follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so. Yamla (talk) 16:17, 20 June 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.

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Canterbury Cathedral, you may be blocked from editing. Dl2000 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Canterbury Cathedral

To explain what was disruptive about your edits, your first edit of 16 Dec 2020 removed substantial amounts of content (about 42k), including drastically reducing the number of inline citations in the article from 78 to 12. You repeated that same massive deletion later that day. The content deletions went too far beyond a "Correction of dates in Assistant Organists". If your only goal was to correct an organists list, your edits should have been limited to updating that list. If you still wish to correct that list, you should cite at least one source while again keeping your edits restricted to that list. Any other edits to the article should also take care to ensure you are editing an appropriate amount of the article's extent, again noting that appropriate sources/citations should be used. I trust this is a better explanation of the concern here. Dl2000 (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]