User talk:TheSenate7
I am the Senate.
TheSenate7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was trying to add recent controversy surrounding the White Hall High School principal Mark Jelks. I had not yet added a source yet, but I was in the process of adding one. I literally copied the link to the source in the dialogue box in order to add the source when I was suddenly blocked for trying to add new information to an extremely outdated page. I have made many of the recent edits to both the White Hall High School and White Hall School District pages and seem to be the only one who cares about the pages. I do not see why I deserve to be blocked by someone who has never even edited the pages before when I am doing my best to make them accurate. I was not aware that posted true information counted as vandalism.
Decline reason:
Apparently you could interrupt the process of adding a source at least five times to re-add the content without a source. You could even leave a message for another editor telling them that you were in the process of adding a source. And then you re-added the content without a source yet again. Google News doesn't know of any media coverage of this incident. That makes it very difficult to believe that you would have added a reliable source if you hadn't been blocked for repeatedly re-adding the content without a source. Huon (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
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.
TheSenate7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand this reasoning. If you would unblock me, I will not attempt to post this change again until an official news station posts the story (likely tomorrow or soon) because I am legitimately trying to make this article better. I understand that this is a severe accusation, so I understand that I should not try to claim it without proof. If you cannot unblock my account, at least unblock my IP address. My family regularly uses Wikipedia and would be unhappy if they could not make an account. In response to the last administrators’ request, I only submitted the unsourced content again so it would be easy for me to add the source without having to type everything again or find the URL of the image I uploaded again. Also, I did tell the person who undid my edit that I was in the process of adding a source. You can look at his talk page. Instead of giving me a chance, he promptly had me blocked. Here is the best proof of the story right now, but it should be on local news stations soon. https://www.facebook.com/100006296343416/posts/2408138332739355?sfns=mo
Decline reason:
You seem to be here for the purpose of embarrassing your principal and not improving this encyclopedia. I would want you to agree to not edit about this subject at all, and to know what you will edit about instead, in order to unblock you. As we have no way of knowing who is sitting at your computer, the autoblock of your IP will not be removed(as you could also create an account). If you wish to not affect your family's editing of Wikipedia(they can still read it even while blocked), I suggest you do as I have asked here. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
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.
TheSenate7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I agree not to post about that subject again since it is irrelevant to the page and does not truly contribute much to to encyclopedia. I plan to add sources and information to the White Hall High School page and others so that they are not filled with unproven information like it is now. I also do not plan on making any more accounts because I am not interesting in vandalism.
Decline reason:
You still have not demonstrated an understanding of WP:CITE and WP:RS, nor am I comfortable unblocking you when you state you plan to continue editing this same general subject area. I agree with 331dot above, you realistically can't be trusted without a topic ban around the White Hall High School and all related subjects. Yamla (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
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.
TheSenate7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I literally just said I was going to cite sources in my last request and I promised not to post about Mr. Jellks again. I only wanted to be unblocked so I could add some information back (with reputable sources) that the last user who edited the page removed. This user removed all the information on the page besides sports because its had no sources; however, he didn't even add sources to the sports section after all of his complaining about there not being sources in the other parts. I am the only one who has been editing this page for a while since everyone else seems to be more interested in putting false information or deleting everything.
Decline reason:
As noted, your track record of editing the article to insert your vendetta of the day is clear. Since your only interest is in editing a page where you have self-control issues, I don't feel comfortable unblocking. Kuru (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
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 literally said before that you were in the process of adding a source and then re-added content without a source for which you now admid that, to your knowledge, no reliable source exists. You indeed have been a frequent contributor to the page and have frequently vandalized it. Or were you in the process of adding a source for that edit, too, all the time since September? Huon (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)