User talk:Horse oh

December 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Donner60 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cite a BBC article but it merely reports al-Fayed's charges, which have been investigated and dismissed. This can not be shown as a fact in this article. Note that there is another article Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories which covers this topic. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Minnesota, you may be blocked from editing. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you introduce jokes into articles, as you did at Minnesota. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

because I am just a human being trying to tell people the truth, but you fatsos are trying to cover it up. Name one thing I did wrong.

Decline reason:

This unblock request, for one. Talk page access revoked. Yamla (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2016 (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.

Horse oh (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]