User talk:Centrist1

Welcome!

Hello, Centrist1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to 2019–20 Croatian presidential election. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American politics discretionary sanctions notice

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-1932 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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Egregious edit warring at 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:05, 7 February 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).

Centrist1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Explained to Smith several times that he should follow and respect the discussion on the talk page about what the majority believed in, but he/she refused to listen and kept reverting, I admit and take responsibility that I did revert, but it was for what users agreed on, on the talk page, his edits were unfaithful. I told Smith numerous times to not revert consistently, but he kept on reverting to their preferred option and I continued to explain to them. On other things, I did revert, but I was then discussing the matter on the talk page yesterday and today with them on finding a reasonable solution. The users disagreed with some things that I had edited and I continued to discuss it with them and then they explained a good reason for the edit and it was resolved, but on this issue about TBD, I sided with the majority on leaving the column blank until results were revealed, but Smith kept reverting to their preferred option. On the Iowa Democratic Caucus article, [1], another user had joined in and agreed with me and the other users on the talk page to leave the delegate count alone until results were revealed. Centrist1 (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:43, 7 February 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.

Blanking my responses to you does nothing to demonstrate any good faith on your part. Also, stating "I didn't edit war" when your contribs show that is a blatantly false statement does not demonstrate that you understand what edit warring is, at all.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: That was accidental and to be honest I didn’t see that until now, so don’t accuse me of doing that on purpose that’s one and second you might have blocked me and the other guy, but you definitely think that it’s all my fault as you went more strict on me and more soft on him and I explained the situation to you clearly and I don’t know why you think it is a appropriate to seem to punish both people, but actually taking a biased path. [2]. Centrist1 (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]