User talk:UR1N3

October 2017

Hello, I'm Kleuske. I noticed that you recently removed content from Miguel Rosales without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Massachusetts Body of Liberties, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations, you may be blocked from editing. Kleuske (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Heart Internet. Kleuske (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is being used only for vandalism. Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. Alexf^(talk) 13:49, 7 October 2017 (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).

UR1N3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

No reason given -- Alexf^(talk) 13:53, 7 October 2017 (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).

UR1N3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Just because someone doesn't give a reason, it doesn't mean you should decline it. UR1N3 (talk)

Decline reason:

It most certainly does. And you will lose access to your talk page unless your next action is a sensible unblock request which addresses your inappropriate username and your vandalism here. Yamla (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2017 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

UR1N3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19442 was submitted on Oct 07, 2017 15:02:09. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]