User talk:Sammy smyth

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat deletion of sourced material with deceptive edit summaries

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:02, 30 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am adding a link from AP news stating that Warner brothers have never confirmed who was diagnosed with Covid on the set of the batman. For some reason I have been blocked. The person who blocked me appears to be posting gossip Sammy smyth (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - multiple open requests. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2020 (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.

The Vanity Fair source doesn't claim that Warner Brothers identified him, nor does the article. You were blocked because contrary to your deceptive edit summary your main purpose seems to be removing other well-sourced information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:36, 30 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Vanity fair states that an unnamed source claimed Pattinson had Covid. There has never been any confirmation who had Covid on the set. I added the Associated press article that contained only the facts from WB studio itself. Not reliant on ‘sources’ unless you claim the daily mail is a reliable source? I even left the vanity fair article. I would like my ban to be looked at by another admin as you seem to be irrationally bothered by this. Sammy smyth (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per OhNoitsJamie - there were other issues with your editing. Just sit out the rest of your block and come back prepared to edit constructively. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2020 (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.

Anyone can look at your short edit history and see that that's not the only thing you were doing. You were warned to stop removing sourced material without explanation, and you continued to do it. If you resume removing that material when this block expires, the next block will be indefinite. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]