Don't start an edit war=[edit]

The Falklands are a part of Great Britain and therefore the flag is the current flag. The claim of Argentine is not relevant in this case and has been dealt with in the main article of the Falklands.

Hello, I'm KittenKlub. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to [[:2020 coronavirus pandemic in South America]] have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.. Do not engage in an edit war KittenKlub (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t care about the article of the British Overseas Territory, it is another topic at all and I'm not worried at the moment of it because it is the name of the british administration unit as for us the Malvinas are under the Department of the Islands of the South Atlantic wich flag is the one you delated. I remember you that in 1965 94 countries voted positive to recognize a sovereignty dispute. This means that from a neutral point of view like the Wikipedia´s one the Malvinas/Falklands are a part of the UK in the same way they are a part of Argentina. So there are two options, we add the Malvinas infected to the column of Argentina or we add the Tierra del Fuego flag in equality to the overseas territory´s one. You decide KittenKlub --Facu Guti (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning before political-fighting-only block[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it --Facu Guti (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely 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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:44, 12 April 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).

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

Request reason:

I got in the Wikipedia English to contribute with the same info that I had been adding to the spanish version. Yesterday the Government of Argentina communicated to the press that it will start counting the COVID19 Falklands statistics inside those of Argentina. So I decided to end with the English-speaking bias in the COVID 19 pages. I didn´t write anything wrong or against the rules. Firstly in the page of the COVID19 pandemic in the Falklands I added that those are claimed by Argentina, I added the website of the Tierra del Fuego province refering to the Coronavirus in addition to the British one and I mentioned that Argentina provided them with medical resources. I made changes in the page of the pandemic in South America delating the reference to the British sovereignty of the South Atlantic Islands which is a disputed and unresolved issue. What is more, I open the debate if it was right to add the Argentinean flag or add the infected to the Argentinean statistic like my government did. All this work was censored in a authoritarian act of abuse of power that can´t be tolerable in Wikipedia by the User Ohnoitsjamie who accused me of disruptive edition. Instead of proving the commiting of these acts, the user prefered to not exchange words or explanations and only blocking me. Why I didn´t make disruptive edition? 1st I am not tendentious because despite my personal opinion I think that Wikipedia must keep neutral and not to recognize any sovereignty in dispute, and adding only one flag, website and kind of info is so tendentious. 2nd It is verifiable because I don´t delate any source, I use true new sources and the general truth that recognize that the sovereignty of the Malvinas is an unsolved issue. 3rd I engage consensus because I am opened to dialogue, in fact, I opened a debate in the talk of the article and I speaked to the library but instead of answers and debate I received a ban. 4th Final warning is a lie, it was the first and only warning that I have got. Regards and I wait for justice, nothing more ´ Facu Guti (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you think there is nothing wrong with your edits, there are no grounds for lifting your block. Yamla (talk) 21:26, 12 April 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.

Why are the reasons? Yamla there is no worse blind than the one who doesn´t want to see --Facu Guti (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.