User talk:JustMyTwoCents

Welcome!

Hello, JustMyTwoCents! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 00:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

JustMyTwoCents, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JustMyTwoCents! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Intelligent designer, have been undone. 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. You made a change to a long-standing version of this article and it was undone. Per WP:BRD you should have discussed this on the talk page rather than restoring your version of the edit. Take it to the talk page and see if you can get consensus for your changes. 19:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Global warming controversy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Category:Creationism, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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 ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 1 September 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

No vandalism or disruption whatsoever was committed; my edits were accurate and open-ended, and included obvious corrections to blatantly biased agendas (namely, an extremely clear bias against creation/intelligent design including enforcement of false dichotomy). Any objections that might be applicable to anything I wrote/changed were not put forth properly, with my edits instead being broadly reverted without discussion or discretion given to which specific details were considered objectionable. Me being blocked for these simple activities, meanwhile, is just flat-out offensive, and a suppression of free-expression. JustMyTwoCents (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I can find no evidence at all that you discussed your edits on the article's talk page. Furthermore, it appears as though you may be evading your block in order to continue editing. Yamla (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2016 (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.

I suggest that the admin considering this request look at the recent IP edits to Day-age creationism just minutes before this unblock request. Meters (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously

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).

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

Request reason:

See the previous explanation, also additionally noting the abusively illegitimate reasons given for its rejection, including false insinuations of me evading the original block, and falsely implying that I am required to explain everything I change on talk pages beforehand. I again stress that my edits were not disruptive or incorrect, and that any legitimate objections to my changes were not brought up properly, with the objectors instead abusively holding it against me on a personal level.

Decline reason:

Attacking everyone else will not get you unblocked. (And I suggest you pay attention to Guy's comment, below, too). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2016 (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.

You think that's going to help your case? Here's what will happen if you keep on in that vein: your talk page access will be revoked. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I beg your pardon, "Guy"? JustMyTwoCents (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Ticket

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).

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

Request reason:

Desire to make other various edits; original block was made and previously upheld with no reason given and falsely stating that I had inserted "incorrect" information, without specifying what was considered such. Several months have also passed.

Decline reason:

The previous block was certainly given a reason, as you were edit-warring and refusing to achieve consensus to make your edits. Time does not matter, as you still do not understand, nor do you look to change the behavior that caused your block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

No explanation was ever given of what I was doing wrong; please provide one? What does "refusing to achieve consensus" even mean?

Decline reason:

The fact that you don't want to listen to the explanation does not mean the block was without a rationale. Your utter refusal to even consider your editing is problematic does not negate the fact that it is, and continuing to refuse to get the point will lead to a revocation of talkpage access. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:28, 9 February 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

The previous "explanation" given still explained nothing at all.

Decline reason:

Please, do not use unblock requests to ask for explanations. Unblock request should only be used to request unblocking (logically). If you do not understand the reason for block, try WP:pinging the blocking admin and discussing with them. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2017 (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.

New Ticket

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).

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

Request reason:

This is a request to be unblocked, considering the time that has passed, the lack of rationale given for imposing it in the first place (which seemed to be in line with an atheist agenda) and the fact that the claim that I am "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" is very much inaccurate, as I have browsed many other pages during the past months which I have wanted to edit, in many cases correcting clear errors, and have been unable to as a result of this inexplicable ban which was never adequately explained.

Decline reason:

Time has passed indeed, however since you're still refusing to listen, I have to declined this request too. Additionally, due to the number of requests already declined, I've revoked your privilege to edit this page. You may still use UTRS to appeal, but it will not do you any good if you keep refusing to admit the obvious. Max Semenik (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2017 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #17622 was submitted on Feb 26, 2017 22:05:21. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #18323 was submitted on May 18, 2017 00:08:48. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19396 was submitted on Oct 03, 2017 01:26:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19542 was submitted on Oct 19, 2017 18:45:37. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19685 was submitted on Nov 05, 2017 03:20:30. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]