User talk:Jamistrue

October 2020[edit]

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 ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned repeatedly that you were harassing multiple users. What you are doing, or trying to do is WP:OUTING. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Jamistrue (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But rickinbaltimore never do this type of job. Dont do wrong things never do. Jamistrue (talk) 15:39, 21 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I am blocked for the reason I told the writer of wikipedia to write the real facts. If wikipedia allows any user to write wrong facts then the whole world will be getting wrong facts Jamistrue (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for telling "the writer of wikipedia to write the real facts". You were blocked for harassment and trying to "out" other editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 21 October 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.

They all were writing false facts on wikipedia page for misinformation. Jamistrue (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include claims no credible secondary source is taking seriously, especially not on articles of living or recently-departed people. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 17:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dont spread wrong facts if you have too many edits. I know you are getting paid. Jamistrue (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. It's clear that you are here simply to push a specific viewpoint and continuing to attack editors that are telling you different only furthers that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note as well that this user left an intolerable, and frankly inexplicable, personal attack on my talk page, given all I did in this article was copyedit the phrase "died at the age of #" to "died aged #." Competence is absent as well as the ability to engage in civil discourse. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]