User talk:Larouby

May 2017

Hello, I'm SkyWarrior. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Tegan and Sara— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SkyWarrior 00:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tegan and Sara. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Tegan and Sara was changed by Larouby (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.853915 on 2017-05-20T00:25:49+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Tegan and Sara, you may be blocked from editing. SkyWarrior 00:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I best explain to you why your edits are unacceptable. For starters, you don't provide a reliable source confirming your statement, which is a must. Your own word is not a reliable source. And secondly, and most importantly, your edits are not in a neutral point of view, which is also a must. They pretty much border into original research territory (also a no) and can easily be considered vandalism. Please don't do it again, or you may end up blocked. SkyWarrior 00:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Tegan and Sara. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:48, 20 May 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

im very sorry Larouby (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, the standard offer approach could be applied to this case. PhilKnight (talk) 01:45, 20 May 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.