User talk:198.27.150.168

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked when I was asking how I could avoid being blocked. please explain why I am blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am trying to get unblocked. I am told I was being "disruptive", but I don't get it. I could not get anyone to respond to my comments on the talk page and bd2412 kept reverting even the most minor change. bd2412 refused to discuss anything so I tried to get others to comment. A guy came on and implied I had a political agenda, so I said he was paranoid, then he threatened to ban me. I'll try not to take offense next time someone accuses me of a political agenda. I called bd2412 "ignorant" on the help channel. bd2412 was not on the help channel, so he wasn't offended, but someone was offended on his behalf. To me, I'm just saying that s/he seems uneducated based on bd2412's comments and posts. I was trying to be factual and explain that it was a problem. In the future I will not call someone "ignorant" because I can see that others view the term different from me. I don't know what else to address. If I knew, I would address it. I do not understand these protocols, but I'm trying. All I want to do is improve the article. Every time bd2412 reverted my edit, I did not revert back, etc. I was trying my best to follow the rules and went to help to make sure I was following the rules. I went to help to ask what to do when the owner or whatever you call the guy who controls the page reverts everything and refuses to talk. They blocked me for the question. I'm just confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read and heed Robert McClenon's advice below. Also, do you have an outside relationship with the subject? (not clear on that) At any rate, if you are making vast changes to an article and are reverted, you need to make policy based explanations for those changes on the talk page. Also, all content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Were your changes adequately sourced? This is a checkuser bock. Please read the pertinent parts of the WP:GAB. If you have been SOCKing, that would be the reason for the block. (Apparently, someone recognized what looks like a blocked editor's tells.) Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I feel I am being accused of random things. No, I have no relationships with a subject, no, I don't post edits with out cites from peer reviewed articles, no, I did not evade the block, no, I'm not someone else. so far, the complaints are that I want to edit the article point by point and I write too much on the talk page and I don't sign my posts. Are these the reasons for the block? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have accounts and I've seen your SPI case. You may log into your original account to file an unblock request OR you may tell the folks here who you are and why you haven't logged into your account. I'm not going to let you waste anyone else's time here so understand that if your next post doesn't have your account name then talk page access will be revoked. To let you know that I understand who you are, your account was created in 2006, your socks created in 2011 & 2012 and all were blocked in 2013. Your original account still has talk page access and its last edit was June 2, 2013. Denial will end the dialog on this talk page. As a checkuser, I can't come right out and tell them who you are but I can certainly do something about it if you don't.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2019 (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.

January 2021[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.