User talk:AmbroseGreypaw

🐱🐈🐆🐅🥛🥛🥛🥛🥛🥛🍶🍶🍶🥤🥣🍕🍕🍟🎂🐦🐀 AmbroseGreypaw (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive comments welcome on here. Threats of blocks after constructive,good faith edits are not welcome and further incidents may end up on the administrators noticeboard. AmbroseGreypaw (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Greta Thunberg have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

apologies for that edit. Probably a bit biased from me AmbroseGreypaw (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Piers Morgan. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the date of birth been removed? AmbroseGreypaw (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2022 (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 ~~~~}}. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imdefinite Block? I am here to edit constructively. AmbroseGreypaw (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that Greta Thunberg made an extremely hysterical speech and changing the title of a source by adding "and unhinged" are constructive edits confirms that this is a good block. Doug Weller talk 10:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes clearly they were not. I apologize, probably should not be editing late at night. I still think an indefinite block is not necessary. I have made many good contributions on here and wish to continue doing so. AmbroseGreypaw (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot of reverted edits, and several warnings for adding unsourced material. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 1 January 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't wish to disrupt Wikipedia. I have constructively edited for the last few months. Admittedly I have done a few silly ones lately, for which I apologize.Feel like this block is not necessary to stop disruption as I wish to add content which is encyclopedic going forward, rather than jokey sort of edits such as a couple this week. Happy new year AmbroseGreypaw (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't convince me that the inappropriate and unsourced edits will stop. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2023 (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.