Godspeed18
August 2021 edit
Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Critical race theory—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. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
January 2022 edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Critical race theory. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Girth Summit (blether) 02:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —valereee (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Unblock edit
Godspeed18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I realize I have abused my right to edit the CRT page in the past however I believe I have learned from my mistakes and today present an alternative to my previous behavior. I believe the page lacks balance and I have attempted in moderation to provide that balance. My edit deserves the light of day I believe this is a matter of discussion. I understand CRT is a controversial topic that is why a balanced approach is necessary provide people with information and allow them to make their own decision that is the function of the encyclopedia and today we are provided we Wikipedia. I respect and appreciate the tiresome and thankless job of monitoring Wikipedia so that it is not overrun with hate and vandalism. My edit seeks to balance hate and I have realized the error of vandalizing a page that is why I seek only to add constructive logical deductions that relate to the content presented. Furthermore I was not even given 10 minutes to respond to the "warning" and remove the edit on my own without being blocked. Wikipedia is resource to so many, if we provide lop sided articles that only represent one view point we are doing a disservice to society. Please review my other edits I have been an asset to Wikipedia, not a nuisance please don't block me from the discussion just because this is a hot button topic. I realize the fine line here and I intend to respect it going forward. @Valereee: Godspeed18 (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I cannot believe that you understand the problem with your editing yet manage to add this crap to your user page immediately after asking to be unblocked. I wish I could topic ban you but you've not been noticed of the discretionary sanctions yet. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2022 (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.
Discretionary Sanction Notification edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
EvergreenFir (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Your post on my talk edit
I appreciate that you removed it, but I get notified of changes (as you will be notified of this post) so I saw it anyway. Please don't put stuff like that on my talk again, I'm not interested in having a discussion about your opinions on the subject. I am prepared to give you a little bit of advice about how we write and edit articles: we summarise what sources say, rather than writing what we believe to be true. If we make a change to the meaning of a sentence in an article (such as by changing the phrase 'anti-racism' to 'racist'), we explain what you are doing in the edit summary, and we would only do it if the cited sources support such a change. Writing 'punctuation' as an edit summary to accompany such a change is deceptive, and therefore unacceptable. You have now been notified of the discretionary sanctions that cover this topic area; if you try anything like that at that article again, you will likely find yourself unable to edit here at all. Best Girth Summit (blether) 12:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)