2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:76

October 2017

Hello, I'm Simplexity22. An edit that you recently made to Equinox seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Simplexity22 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Here was my original request:"In the article for the 2018 Senate election in California, there was a sentence on the article that was violent hate speech against the elderly. It was completely unacceptable, so I removed it. Then people reverted my edit. I am still confused to why these people did so. At the time I got furious and said some stuff I shouldnt have. All I wanted to do was to defend the elderly from violence, which is a personal issue for me since my grandmother was killed in a violent attack. I should of handled myself better and assumed good faith, which was very hard to do at the time. I am honestly baffled that people wanted the violence to stay, and I would like to hear a reason why. In an attempt to make up for what happened eariler and resolve the issue, I reached out all the users involved and kindly asked them to explain their positions on the issue. For this I was blocked again. I promise that I am done with assuming bad faith on fellow editors and now am ready to have a good discussion. Could you please unblock me so I can do so and we can resolve this issue? Could you also please explain why people want the violence to stay? Thank you for understanding." This request was declined because the admin couldn't prove that the reason the range is blocked is because of the reasons I mentioned. So I submitted another block request in which I restated my original request and added to the end that the admin could review the situation and prove that this is the reason for the rangeblock by looking at my range's edit history and the history for the main and talk page for the 2018 Senate election in California. The admin apparently missed that I added this part, as he declined this request for " the same reason as the first" although I had addressed the issue and explained how to find the information. Could an admin please look through the situation and consider unblocking me? Thank you 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:76 (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The inclusion of speculation of whether someone will retire because of their age in an article is not violence, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

• Also see special:contribs/2600:387:6:800:0:0:0:0/60. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

In addition, it is clear that you are evading the block on special:contribs/2601:206:4000:8774:0:0:0:0/64. FYI @Malcolmxl5 and Yamla: —DoRD (talk)​ 14:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, I'm Ashleyyoursmile. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wonder Woman 1984 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 Teahouse. Thanks. Ashleyyoursmile! 08:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wonder Woman 1984. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bob the Railway Dog, you may be blocked from editing. DanCherek (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

June 2021

Hello, I'm Yahya. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to 79—because it 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. ~Yahya (✉) • 22:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

---