User talk:88.109.70.26

August 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to WAP (song), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I was wrong when I said that you didn't discuss your problems with the article on the talk page. Sorry about that. Wikipedia policies state that you need for other editors to respond to your concerns. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month to prevent further vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}. Cabayi (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

Request reason:

unfair 88.109.70.26 (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, only one open at a time. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:43, 20 August 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

the page that i edited had clear bias so i removed the rebukes within the article. an editor then reverted my edit and claimed it was vandalism because the rebukes are 'well sourced', well yes, they have a 'source', but are clearly biased since on that page every single conservative point has multiple rebukes and every liberal point is unattacked, furthermore the reception is regarded as 'critically acclaimed' even though later in the article it says their was backlash. 88.109.70.26 (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We report what reliable sources say, no more, no less. I'm not sure how removing sourced claims was somehow fixing bias. I think you're reading too much into this, its a song about pussy for christs sake, this isn't a liberal/conservative politcal issue. At any rate, this unblock request is trying to defend your edits, which is not very productive. Cabayi thought your edits were quite problematic, and I agree. So if you'd like to get unblocked, you should tell us how you'll be more productive in the future than trying to right great wrongs, and how you won't cause problems if unblocked. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:04, 20 August 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

every liberal point is left unattacked but every conservative point is attacked. the song is apparently 'critcally acclaimed', clear bias, so i edited it. your OWN co founder has called this site out for bias for fucks sake, i know you're liberal because you have 'agender' listed so you just dont care about how art is seen or bias so i guess you win here, just dont be confused when trump gets re-elected, you own all the media and still fail 88.109.70.26 (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a rant, not an unblock request. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2020 (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.

Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Those sources are presented to the reader so they can evaluate them and judge for themselves any bias. If you are unable to work with others of differing opinions or views in a civil manner, you may spend your time elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

you have more power than me so you choose to use it to abuse people who want neutrality. you decided i violated a rule because it goes against your liberal bias, your CO FOUNDER says it too, you are clearly upset that i tried to remove the libreal bias since you are a liberal yourself, lets not fool anyone here, if you dont want me to clean up with your badly written articles because you think wikipedia is a good brainwashing tool for your personal evil then go ahead, but whatever you write back to me is still objectively wrong 88.109.70.26 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since all you're doing is ranting, your talk page access is revoked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2020 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.