User talk:Supernaturalsamantha

April 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal was changed by Supernaturalsamantha (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.87319 on 2017-04-15T06:10:37+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For thinking of Ron Paul and healthy skepticism. RaRaRasputin (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at /r/The Donald. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supernaturalsamantha, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Supernaturalsamantha! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

21:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of SixMillionStrong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) 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 is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. 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.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fucking sock puppet. Why do you make it so hard to reply to this? Are you intentionally blocking people that you personally disagree with? As far as I know I've broken zero rules except trying to edit articles. Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reply from the goobers who blocked me wrongfully because they're prejudiced. Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf

Not a puppet. Unblock.

Hello. In order for an admin to notice this, you'll need to include the {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} template. You should read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks first, though, and follow its advice. Grayfell (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

not a puppet, if you have proof otherwise, show me Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A very convincing proof here, confirmed by checkuser. Optimist on the run (talk) 06:08, 1 May 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.