User talk:Freddydavis69

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Freddydavis69! Thank you for your contributions. I am Aboideau and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! aboideau^talk 15:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hello, I'm Tolly4bolly. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Adam Rose 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 help desk. Tolly 4 bolly 02:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meltzer

If you disagree with the consenssus you need to discuss it on the talkpage, not edit war.★Trekker (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.★Trekker (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ★Trekker (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. ★Trekker (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to threaten me? I am posting updates with sources. You are surpressing information. Meltzer's page is quite short. There is room for this AND it is true and was major news at time time. Why are you surpressing this? - Freddy Davis

My talkpage

I have a right to decide what I keep on my talkpage, you can't force on content which I don't want on it. Please stop, what you are doing is harassment.★Trekker (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You started by writing to me. You won't speak to so I am trying to discuss and educate you.

October 2019

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior at User talk:*Treker is not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User is clearly NOTHERE GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2019 (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).

Freddydavis69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the block is no .onger required. I will not get involved in any harrasement or edit wars going forward. I would like to be a productive member of the community. I feel I can add a lot of information. Freddydavis69 (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is nowhere near sufficient. Yamla (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2019 (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).

Freddydavis69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am genuinly sorry, and deltetning a talk page was an error, i was trying to add a Dave meltzer section (you can check the page). I made an error and was about to restore but was removed before I could. I promise no more issues from myself Freddydavis69 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You may have been blocked for blanking *Trekker's talk page, but your entire history on Wikipedia has been nothing but edit warring, personal attacks, and harassment. Nothing here convinces me that you should be unblocked. ST47 (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2019 (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.

Comment

If Freddydavis69 is genuinely sorry then I think he should be given another chance.★Trekker (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ★Trekker I apologise for any distress I caused you.

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).

Freddydavis69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have apologised to Trekker, if he is happy me having 1 final chance surely that should count for somthing? Freddydavis69 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Only one request open at a time, please. MER-C 18:20, 4 November 2019 (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.

Can you please explain why you are also editing as User:TB109?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is my brother. As far as I know he hasn't had any issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddydavis69 (talk • contribs)

Except that you and your brother are editing overlapping articles and have a penchant for reverting Trekker, which violates WP:SOCK.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 24 October 2019 (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).

Freddydavis69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If the person I was involved in an argument is OK me coming back, and I have apologized why can't I hava nother chance? I won't cause any issues for anyone going forward. Freddydavis69 (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is already an open request on this page. Further requests will not speed up the unblock process in any way. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:23, 28 October 2019 (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).

Freddydavis69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can I please be unblocked. I have apologized, and the person I was rude too has said he is OK with me returning. I won't cause any more issues. Freddydavis69 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2019 (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.