User talk:Bryant7728

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Bryant7728, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm KREOH. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Economy of Indonesia, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. KREOH (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Potential superpowers; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please go to the article and self revert to avoid jeopardizing your editing privilege. Tiderolls 14:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bryant7728, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also UTRS appeal #38736 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not modify my message. Feel free to request an unblock below, but note that your added text was completely irrelevant to the block reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS decline

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=~~~~}}.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please see UTRS appeal #38736

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Administrator,

Recently, I just got blocked for editing because of sock puppet (abusing multiple accounts), that is true I'm use another account (Calvinca27) to for editing the same Wikipedia page (Potential Superpowers) the same time over and over. I'm admit my mistakes by changing the Wikipedia source over and over without giving a talk & discussion. I'm understand that a block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent me from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism. I'm promised to not do the same mistakes again. I'm here in Wikipedia because I want to learn an article and make an improvements in Wikipedia if there is an article that is outdate.

I'm fully understand the block was to: 1. That the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy); or: 2. That the block is no longer necessary because I'm understand what you are blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead; or: 3. That my conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the block (this can happen if a block is aimed at resolving a separate situation and you are unintentionally blocked as a result because I'm use the same IP range). 4. If the background or reason isn't clear, my request may be declined out of hand. 5. In complicated situations, the reviewing administrator may not read my whole talk page and all of your contributions. Relevant information not in my unblock request may be overlooked. 6. If I make repeated invalid or offensive unblock requests, my talk page access may be revoked which makes it even more difficult to request unblocking. 7. Blocks should be used to: I. Prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia. II. Deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and III. Encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

Regards

Bryant Ricardo