User talk:Anant-morgan

Welcome!

Hello, Anant-morgan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Mike Allen 15:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No research as such. Wikipedia does not acknowledge a single website's verdict by discarding all others'. Barbie was an example, not an excuse. There are lots of movies that fit this narrative. In fact, a Metascore in the 50s generally coincides with postive reviews. Other examples: Mission: Impossible (1996 film), Aquaman (film, Thor (film), etc. As long as the film is still running, calling anything remotely negative about it such as prematurely declaring it a flop (looked at the box-office bomb discussion at The Marvels (film) talk page and such is potential damaging for the film. Do not jump the gun over 6% on Metacritic that would push it past "generally favorable reviews" or 5% that would make it "certified fresh" from already "fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes. Also, it clears up that "generally favorable reviews" doesn't directly means "generally positive reviews;" in fact, the latter can be achievable at a lower score too (as the case with The Beekeeper. Anant-morgan (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a bunch of nonsense, especially coming from someone that “just” started editing this month. Have a nice day! Mike Allen 15:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone starts sometime. Doesn't make them not qualified. Otherwise Wikipedia wouldn't allow so, would it?

Also, your tone pretty much shows you aren't even paying attention to my logic, but it's rather your arrogance that's driving your judgement. Anant-morgan (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you have been doing is attacking me. So I’m done with this conversation. If I don’t revert it, then someone else will since it goes against policy. So be it. Mike Allen 18:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Past Lives

Wikipedia is a volunteer project, something not getting updated in 2 months isn't anyones fault as it's no one in particular's responsibility. Access dates should always be updated when you get new information from a source so it's clear when it was last updated and source working. Please don't revert without a reason especially when you self-revert straight after. Please don't use personal attacks like "pretentious snob" in edit summaries. Indagate (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then remember to update stuff yourself from next time instead of going after those who do. This 'access date' system is rather new and I'm adjusting to it. Also, if didn't thank, you shouldn't preach. No one likes a corrector. I did what I saw was due and you did the same so you also didn't need to write it in your summary that previous user, ie me, hadn't covered that date stuff. Anant-morgan (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. It's not my responsibility to update anything just like it's not yours or anybodys as Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so no one needs to "remember to update stuff". Edit summaries should almost always be used so stating what I fixed is not going after you at all. The access date has been part of the citation formats on Wikipedia and referencing systems in general for ages, that isn't new, if they're new to you then please read the template documentation, but mistakes like that don't break anything and is how everyone learns so you'll know for next time. Indagate (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make wild assumptions like someone is not being civil. I was hurt too when an almost fine edit from my side was referred in a summary as incomplete. Anant-morgan (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added  before the comment before {{RT prose}} & {{Metacritic film prose}} on Past Lives (film). Please consider that WP:CITEWEB guidance for web pages advises the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page. Please also consider that not updating the access-date could easily lead to another editor accessing that web page when it was not needed because it was already current.

Rotten Tomatoes & Metacritic are both web sites. Common documentation for the access-date for citation templates like {{cite web}} states:

access-date: Full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article; do not wikilink; requires url; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations.^{[date 1]} Not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is required for online sources, such as personal websites, that do not have a publication date; see WP:CITEWEB. Access dates are not required for links to published research papers or published books. Note that access-date is the date that the URL was found to be working and to support the text being cited.

Updating the access-date is thus both a courtesy to other editors & a documented practice. It is my sincere hope that now that you are now informed about this, that you might consider why some editors are a stickler for updating the access-date for accuracy's sake when updating the latest figures. Please update the access-date whenever you include the most recent numbers from a source. Peaceray (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick edit. I didn't read anything else then and I'm not reading now either. What I know is my edits were at least correct and didn't get reverted either so all this long lecture is pointless. Anant-morgan (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying to be helpful and ultimately make the encyclopedia better, Wikipedia is all about collaboration. Would recommend you read the links when you have time but even if you don't hopefully you understand what Peaceray said including how the access-date paramter is not "pointless" and how it should be updated. Indagate (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can see you've made similar edits updating information without updating the access date, like [1], it's a small extra part to your edit to add today's date so please do it as explained above. Indagate (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to The Buddha, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. My edit made the previous phrasing less controversial. It was also bad grammar or redundancy that put the words "success of Buddhism" twice consecutively. How can you not understand this? Of course I know policies and if I had, in fact, done a mistake, you'd be telling me exactly what it was such as 'lack of citation,' etc. you didn't, so, it's not a mistake, we both are aware of it.

Also, saying something like a religion was 'under pressure due to the success of XYZ' so they committed something seems biased and controversial; replacing it with 'following the success of XYZ' only seems reasonable.

give some thought before reverting.

Thank you. Anant-morgan (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Buddha. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Buddha, you may be blocked from editing. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:The Buddha that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. diff "some immature who even lacks common knowledge of English language" Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That 'not very civil' comment wasn't directed at you, my very civil friend who referred to me as 'another one of those pov warrior' and mentioned 3 other editors into that comment tk practically mock me. No, it was for the phrasing that I'm pretty sure you didn't write by yourself. Kindly don't pivot the topic into your own victimhood. Anant-morgan (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Another one

@Doug Weller, RegentsPark, and Bishonen: another pov-edit warrior to watch. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your discussion, my 'professional' editors: This Hindu synthesis emerged after the lifetime of the Buddha, between 500[393]–200[394] BCE and c. 300 CE,[393] under the pressure of the success of Buddhism and Jainism.[395] In response to the success of Buddhism, Gautama also came to be regarded as the 9th avatar of Vishnu

• Apparently, the paragraph begins with a "this," a pronoun. Suggests you it was made by some immature who even lacks common knowledge of English language. • Then comes an uncalled term "under the pressure of success of Buddhism" even though I tried to change it to "following the success of Buddhism." • The comes another mention of "in response to the success of Buddhism;" seems like redundancy and bad grammar.

But, when I changed it into more appropriate language, I was called a "disruptor" and "pov edit warrior." I am letting the bullying slide but someone change the phrasing on this one. It's very unprofessional. Anant-morgan (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk: Anant-morgan. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Repeating a personal attack (Suggests you it was made by some immature ...) after a warning is a bad idea. JimRenge (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hero – Bhakti Hi Shakti Hai, 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. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who watched this show and knows that not every cast member is cited individually, I believe, nah, KNOW that what I did is completely normal and encouraged, especially them comes to an old or forgotten show as such. Anant-morgan (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Hero – Bhakti Hi Shakti Hai. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer to my reasons. Cast members don't need separate citations. Why not just remove all cast members' names then? An actor worked, the proof is in that content. This isn't production detail, critical analysis, box office, ratings, awards, etc. You can just check the show. Anant-morgan (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a senior or some matured editor who will get my point? Anant-morgan (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and WP:MOS:TV Sid95Q (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, here's the link ([2]) to that. In the final 15 seconds and subsequent episodes, you can see her. Now get off my back. If needed that badly, you can find the reference yourself. Anant-morgan (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Hero – Bhakti Hi Shakti Hai shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Save all these unnecessary redundant of details and just answer to what I had to say. I know someone is some television series. Why do we have to hide that detail? Are you restarted or something? Anant-morgan (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you are an a-hole who likes to feel superior which you can't in real life so you use Wikipedia. Anant-morgan (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Hero – Bhakti Hi Shakti Hai. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An actor acted in a show. What's wrong with adding that? Anant-morgan (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not providing a reliable source that's wrong with your edit. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you search for that source then, instead of reverting and edit that plays down and actor's filmography?

Also, where am I supposed to find sources when the show is not huge and neither was internet in India 20 years ago?

Also, since when every cast member has a separate refrence right next to them? Even this very page doesn't feature such non sensical thing.

The Godfather arrived when there was no internet! You gonna remove Marlon Brando's name or should I do it?

"Wrong with your edit"??? Nope. It's wrong with your edits and your dictatorship.

Before you call out for my language, remember you're the one calling it "wrong" when it's not. Could've said "incomplete" but NOOOO! Mr. Superiority Complex aka Wikipedia bully. Anant-morgan (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Continued the behaviour that led to the earlier block plus insults and lack of good faith. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you agree with me and hence, instead of reasoning, you're blocking ways for me to take actions. No wonder Wikipedia admins are popular for their pathetic egoes. Anant-morgan (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative accounts

You mentioned at Talk:The Buddha that you had been blocked from editing recently for a period of two years. Given this account of yours is not blocked, are you currently editing through this account to avoid a block on another? XeCyranium (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's it to you? Anant-morgan (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting sources

Omitting "might" from Spielberg's quote Top Gun: Maverick might have saved the entire theatrical industry, as you did with this edit to the Top Gun: Maverick article, changes the meaning to such an extent that it is tantamount to lying. This is not acceptable. TompaDompa (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a lie; it's an exact quote. Check the reference before making snobby presumptions and accusing me of lying. You aren't the owner of Wikipedia, by the way. Anant-morgan (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, you could have added that 'might' instead of undoing all of my effort, serirously, what's hard with that?

Why are all so-called 'confirmed' editors always butchering othes' valuable hard work instead of just editing it, which is what an editor actually means.

I have added that 'might,' myself. You can stop crying now Anant-morgan (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Top Gun: Maverick. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit had been accepted by a senior auto confirmed user beforehand, a couple of days ago. Give this warning to those who came after it. Mine's the stable version this time.

I'm sorry but I can't just not edit stuff despite knowing I'm perfectly right in my place.

You need to work on erasing this biasness you have towards new users. Anant-morgan (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were automatically accepted as you had edited more than 4 days and more than 10 edits. No one approved them. And that doesn't make yours the stable version. The warning is more or less required once you have made 3 reverts in 24 hours, as we need to be able to stop edit warriors and it's only fair to tell them the consequences if they continue. Or do you think we should block without a warning? Doug Weller talk 13:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called auto-confirmed editors reverted mine more than 3 times too. Even the consensus I added has been deleted, so they won't have to think about it. That's just bullying.

I'm all up for discussion but where is it? Why aren't we discussing then? Why did we remove it from that platform altogether, huh?

Not that you ever listen to logic in these talks anyways, but since you asked, I don't know what you should do with warnings or blocks, I do know that 'bam! Reverted your edits. Do it again and you're blocked' is not morally right! You should discuss:

• if it's needed,

• how much accurate is that,

• how much effort was put in writing it,

• if this isn't right then how to make it right?

But NOOOOO! You are all racists who want to bully over us like elitists, keeping our voice down. Anant-morgan (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

here's what people think of you so-called'editors' on internet:

I share the politics of Wikipedia admins and find them to be some of the most heinous people I’ve ever met. Extremely petty, dishonest, and power tripping. Try complaining about one of them on the ANI board as a lowly non-admin. You’ll just get banned or hunted for the rest of your time on Wikipedia. Wikipedia admins are also extremely censorial on controversial topics. And yes beyond ‘Wikipedia quality’ concerns. They’ll just ban anyone and tons of randos to avoid dealing with a difficult and controversial topic. If they get pushed to actually deal with something difficult, they’ll lock the page and let a page sit for years without meaningful work. ‘Dealing’ with the problem by avoiding it."

Here's what a more human-like entity among you replied to this issue:

It’s because most of them have no lives outside of Wikipedia and, in turn, have serious control and self-esteem issues. This may sound harsh, but I’m a fairly active Wikipedia editor and new page publisher, and I have to deal with these people with almost every edit. There’s also a clear political bias amongst many of these avid users, and as a moderate centrist liberal type, I basically try and take the biases out of various articles. This doesn’t come without pages upon pages of rebuttal for others, and it is outright odd as to how personal some of these people take editing. I’m also fairly certain that there are government officials involved in some of this discourse.

I guess you don't have a life outside; you're pathetic. I feel sorry for your parents.

Anant-morgan (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why can't those other editors be blocked for 'edit war.' They're harming the page by more than just disruption. They're bullying new editors like me. Anant-morgan (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —Small jim 12:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah Anant-morgan (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving the block is warranted. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you just proved that the block wasn't warranted beforehand. So, congrats on such 'barely given any attention' decisions. You're clearly a bully.

Secondly, I also proved a lot of other stuff that you snobby editors rolled your eyes away from. This mere 'blah-blah' doesn't prove anything. Anant-morgan (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay small dick.

I am not shocked the ego on pathetic loser Indians is this fragile. Anant-morgan (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. RegentsPark (comment) 17:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #88257

is closed. User has 24 hours to respond in a fresh UTRS ticket. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=date> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=date}} template (see the help page).

[date 1]