User talk:66.25.171.16

November 2015

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Tawana Brawley rape allegations— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

May 2016

Hello, I'm AusLondonder. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Paul Golding has been undone because it did not appear constructive. 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. AusLondonder (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Talk:Jo Cox, you may be blocked from editing. This is Paul (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The warning was about you posting your personal opinion on the article's talk page. This is Paul (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are for discussing improvement to the article. They are not for general discussion of the subject or unsourced speculation (which can be considered original research). This is especially important where living or recently deceased people are involved (see WP:BLP). clpo13_(talk) 23:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

66.25.171.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I have mentioned you here. This is Paul (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

June 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. SummerPhD^v2.0 04:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talkback

Hello, 66.25.171.16. You have new messages at Talk:Egyptian pyramids.
Message added by Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) at 17:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

no reason was given for blocking me

Decline reason:

We're not going to waste our time or yours here. You are blocked for long term trolling and I've revoked your talk page access. You have been blocked before, you are the same editor and we cannot believe you so there is no point in continuing with dialog here. Wikipedia isn't for you. I'm sure there are other forums where you will find the dialog that you are seeking.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 05:48, 2 July 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.

No reason was given for blocking me. I think the Editor has a political bias. Instead of giving a reason, he says "same kinds of things" I'd been blocked before.

Never. Been. Blocked. Before.

My comments were in the Discussion Pages and were entirely appropriate.66.25.171.16 (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

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.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.