User talk:Nuts566

December 2017

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 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 ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 30 December 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).

Nuts566 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Fine, I understand the poorly cited content was not prudent. Just wished to keep the article more neutral rather then far left biased. (ie. Mark Levin). Nuts566 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have utterly failed to convince me you understand why your edits were inappropriate, nor have you convinced me we can trust you not to make such edits in the future. Yamla (talk) 23:12, 30 December 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).

Nuts566 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

All edits were done with good faith. The edit war was reviewed and I was given a warning for it, to retroactively block after already being issued is unconscionable. In regards to transphobic remark, I was merely editing the biologically accepted pronoun. I did not know that wikepedia would substitute self-identification of facts over facts. However, I will refrain from these convtroversial topics in the future. Nuts566 (talk) 6:27 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

"Conspiracy theories and transphobic nonsense" is an accurate description of these edits. If you can't recognize this, no unblock will be forthcoming. GAB^gab 02:30, 31 December 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.

And what of this? And this? And this? So much for your neutral point of view. General Ization ^Talk 23:44, 30 December 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).

Nuts566 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was wrong. I do not believe in the Obama conspiracy theories anyway. This was my mistake as part of a new years wildness. I have made positives edits in the past but I understand if a retarded mishap could broker distrust. Nuts566 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is just deliberate political vandalism to high-visibility biographies, not a "mishap" or "new years wildness." Wait a while, come back when you're more in control of your urges. Kuru (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2018 (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).

Nuts566 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I used poorly cited content in good faith edits, attempting to neutralize point of view, such as correcting inconsistent gender pronouns. I agree this was a mistake, as I should have used the talk page before making any edits. From now on, I will use the talk page for controversial articles to discuss neutrality. 9/10 edits were accepted, just the last 2 I dealt in controversial subject matter which was a mistake. Nuts566 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a blatant misrepresentation of what you did. Huon (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2018 (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.

It is simply not true that just the last 2 edits were problematic. Out of the last ten edits, 8 were inappropriate. Either this user is trolling or they lack sufficient competence to edit here. Either way, enough. Talk page access revoked. --Yamla (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]