User talk:209.87.29.243

Sacred prostitution

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sacred prostitution, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, I'm Zhanzhao. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Singaporean general election, 2015, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

September 2016

Hello Binksternet, I wanted to let you know that you are not authorized to randomly delete articles based on racial preferences. Or by false allegations, especially anti-Semitism with regards to articles related to racial minorities, anti-Semitism, etc. I think you are a very diligent Binksternet. Unfortunately, perhaps you have wrongly misinterpreted Advertising. Please re-read Wikipedia's policy on infringement of rights here. welcome page Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Binksternet. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wong Kai have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wong Kai. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

If you continue to remove the AfD template at Wong Kai you will be blocked from editing. Your personal attacks against editors accusing them of making racially based edits must also stop immediately.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for disruptive editing including edit warring to remove valid templates while also restoring incorrect ones as well as personal attacks and general disruptive behaviour. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Help! I've been blocked because racists here don't Asian people. Some Asian people help and please boycott this stupid site!~!

Decline reason:

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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2016 (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.

This guy was evading a previous block. See User_talk:DuncanWeir#Blocked. For 11 years he has been trying to promote the film career of Kai Wong. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

March 2021

Hello, I'm Melmann. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to YES Network—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. Melmann 16:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

---