User talk:2A02:C7F:1425:8B00:3076:E0B0:BE10:C797

September 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Conservative Party (UK), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Closing HTML tags

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. The <small> tag must be closed with </small>, not with another <small>, as you did in List of current pretenders. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at List of current pretenders, you may be blocked from editing. DrKay (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

If i used a source that is used on another Wikipedia page, would that still be "poorly sourced". I'm starting to think you have a vendetta against me.

Taylor's book says nothing like what you're claiming. He doesn't talk about anything after 1804. Elizabeth II is not mentioned anywhere. Pretence to a throne is not mentioned anywhere. You must provide an explicit source that supports any introduced material. DrKay (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. El_C 17:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for personal attacks after warning. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 17:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of current pretenders. DrKay (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing to prevent you from persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  DrKay (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

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).

2A02:C7F:1425:8B00:3076:E0B0:BE10:C797 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You are bullying me, you have a vendetta where you undo everything I add even though I provide good and valid sources

Decline reason:

You did not provide sources and you are not being bullied. El_C 17:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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).

2A02:C7F:1425:8B00:3076:E0B0:BE10:C797 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did provide sources, if you go back and look at all my edits you will see that, so don't you dare lie again, and before you say anything this is not a threat, thats just a poor excuse you use when you can't admit you're wrong

Decline reason:

I must be missing something. Your last edit clearly has absolutely no sourcing; you even added it with "citation needed" templates. Kuru (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

I have doubled the length of your block because you have attempted to evade it with this edit. DrKay (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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).

2A02:C7F:1425:8B00:3076:E0B0:BE10:C797 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

That edit is not me, it's a different IP address, I was also never "sock puppeting". Can a neutral admin review this, as I feel like I am being bullied by DrKay? So please be open minded to the idea that an admin is wrong, DrKay has harassed and threatened me.

Decline reason:

I have verified your claim that this edit was made by a different IP address is false. If you are not the target of the block (though it seems likely you are), you are free to edit from here. Sign in with your account. If you don't have an account, one may be created for you via WP:ACC. Yamla (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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).

2A02:C7F:1425:8B00:3076:E0B0:BE10:C797 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The IP that made the edit is: 2a02:c7f:1425:8b00:c029:a090:2bb5:d59d. My IP is: 2A02:C7F:1425:8B00:3076:E0B0:BE10:C797. It is therefore different, DrKay is lying, the proof is right there.

Decline reason:

Two IPs in the same /64 range, both disrupting the same article: same person. As you have now added personal attacks to your repertoire, your talk page access has been revoked. Favonian (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

---