User talk:WWII2003

February 2019

Hello, I'm Thewinrat. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Thomas Barrett (bishop) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. TheWin RatHere! 17:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Hospital Pedro de Elizalde. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Hospital Pedro de Elizalde, you may be blocked from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Joseph P. Cawley

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Template:Joseph P. Cawley, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Aspening (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:26, 16 February 2019 (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).

WWII2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was simply making spelling changes to articles I noticed werent completeWWII2003 (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That isn't what you were doing at all. Until you are honest with us, and describe what your editing intentions are, an unblock is not appropriate. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 16 February 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.