User talk:Betathetapi545

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.

(see User:Novasource for more info)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Betathetapi545, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! IZAK 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comment

Pardon me? I'm not revert warring with anybody. I think those terms are justified and backed up by the sources referenced on that article, which is why I reinstated them. However, if other members of the community in good standing dispute that, then I'm willing to defer to consensus. That second step is what is missing in far too many editors, anonymous and otherwise, and the cause of most of the wikidrama you're attaching to me. Orpheus (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reed

I'm not attempting to "war" with anyone. Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. In that particular case, the material is referenced in text - it doesn't violate any core policies. Regarding my talk page, it is inappropriate to revert any comment removal I might make - please read WP:TALK#User talk pages for more information. Also, you should sign your posts on talk pages so they can be correctly attributed. Orpheus (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re

I really don't know what you're talking about. I don't think I've removed any quotes. Besides, if you have a problem with any edits take it up on the article talk page. Mikco (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Blodget and Bernard L. Madoff

BThP,

See the Madoff talk page and WP:RSN about using Blodget as a source. His blog absolutely may not be used as a source. Whether his opinion in the NY Post should be reported is another matter - but it certainly would have to be labeled as OPINION in any case.

You're a bit worked up about this article and I'll advise slowing down on your edits. It's almost assured that you've violated the 3RR rule in the last 24 hours (maybe in the last 2 hours). I'll ask an administrator to watch this without formally reporting it.

And I will remove the Blodget material unless there is some discussion on the talk page.

Smallbones (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bernard L. Madoff. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Smallbones (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also having an ongoing issue with the above editor. He is a chronic deleter, never abridging content and then tattles to others to send out warnings and because he is addicted to deleting, he even deletes the comments i wrote on his page (also Madoff). Is there anything that can be done to reduce his reverts? He seems to use it as a holier-than-thou power play. He must live in the "hotel know-it-all" at the entry of the long Road to Success (poster).

From Ronnotel (talk) page:

"Could you send a note to the above user, asking him (firmly, but politely) not to reinsert his accusations on my talk page after I've removed them. He's obviously an enthusiastic kid, who's gone ape over the Bernard Madoff affair and brings in anything and everything into this and related articles (e.g. a long quote from Dante). I edit his insertions when absolutely necessary, but in general try to avoid him. I think he just needs to know that he should cool it and that there are a few rules which people do watch. Thanks for any help. Smallbones (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Please try to keep your comments constructive - comment on the content, not the contributor. Ronnotel (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)" Are you certain you sent this to the correct person? Sounds like you should have sent it to the person above...selective discrimination? Are you a patroller or are you personally connected to Smallbones? I don't consider my comments harassment. I consider an editor who deletes rather than abridges essential content a chronic and addicted harasser. Your accusation is misplaced. Sorry you have to be a messenger for others...poor form."[reply]

Furtive admirer (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betathetapi545 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counting your apparent edits as an IP, you are edit-warring and continuing bad-faith attacks on editors who disagree with your additions. Please stop. Acroterion (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Hi. I see you took out the word "sodomized" and put "sexual assault" because you said it was too serious to have without a reference. Can I ask you not to make edits to subjects which are you not familiar with? And if you are still unfamiliar with them, then at least do a bare minimum of research before making edits? It is being reported in all the major papers that the maid said that Strauss-Kohn forced oral sex on her. I simply went to The New York Post and got a reference. Anybody can go around and remove things from Wikipedia claiming "there is no reference for it". I would guess half of Wikipedia is like that. What Wikipedia really needs is for somebody to come along and put the reference in. But when you take things out of Wikipedia, then readers who look at it after your edit do not know what was there and can't provide a reference (because they don't know what wasn't there). Please, take a second or two to verify things before just going around deleting things. If you had bothered to read any of the articles on the Strauss-Kohn mess, you would have known that he sodomized her (or is alleged to have done so). Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the articles talkpage has progressed beyond your limited view. The rules are quite clear that unless WP:RS can be sourced, we can't insert such information, make such a claim - or credibly claim to be an encyclopaedia. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Archer

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jeffrey Archer where I have initiated a discussion of your edits. Philip Cross (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Regarding your edits on Jeffrey Archer:

Do not insert negative material on living persons without proper references and neutral tone. Please read the policy on this. If you violate this again, you will be blocked.
Do not describe any editor's removals as "vandalism", unless they uncontroversially are. See WP:VAND to understand this.
When you are reverted, go to the talk page and discuss the issue. Don't edit war. See WP:BRD

You have been warned several times about your editing, so I'm making this a final warning - particularly with regard to biographies of living people.

Thank you.--Scott Mac 14:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm Auric. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Papist, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Auric talk 21:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what happened - I included three links/sources but I guess they didn't take/get uploaded for some reason. Must be some sort of bug. I am uploading it again, again with the three sources.

Wikipedia in not considered a reliable source on itself. Try again.--Auric talk 23:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bill Conti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Year of the Gun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited God Bless America Again (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2008 Presidential Election. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ruth Madoff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Ross. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Betathetapi545. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madoff Infobox

Betathetapi545— [1] [2] [3] In these edits you are adding "Jewish" or "Judaism" to the Infobox at Madoff. WP:BLPCAT requires self-identification for religion in the Infobox. Use the article Talk page if you wish to discuss this. Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

QuackGuru (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Malcolm Young are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Betathetapi545. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Alex_van_der_Zwaan are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. — Javert2113 (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Betathetapi545. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marc Dreier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unraveled (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding addresses

Please don't add addresses of living people - it's considered an invasion of their privacy. PhilKnight (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to List of Lucchese crime family mobsters, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP edit

Because of a clear similarity of subject matter, POV & tone, I am asking you if this edit was yours, using an IP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not portray him in that positive light. The only "legit" trades he had were ones that he used to camouflage his criminal insider trades. During the investigation it even came out that he hired stuff just to make it look like he had a legitimate operation.

November 2019

Hello, I'm Velella. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This article is about brands that are notable - i.e. have a Wikipedia page where notability has been established Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please

Your comment here seemed less than helpful to me. You insult another editor who provided a detailed explanation of why they didn't find your question helpful, but you never bothered to explain how that question is aimed at improving the article. Please discuss content; don't insult others. Huon (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Your edit to Rush Limbaugh has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Curb Safe Charmer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, CitizenCard, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail reference at Drita D'Avanzo

Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at Drita D'Avanzo. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit comments on Ghislaine Maxwell article

Your edit comments in your recent edits to the Ghislaine Maxwell article go well beyond the standards of civility of Wikipedia, and into the realm of personal attacks. I have blocked you from editing for a period of 72 hours to give you the chance to cool down, and redacted the edit comments from the user-visible logs. See WP:NPA for more guidance on this. -- The Anome (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 19:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on Ghislaine Maxwell talk page

Please stop these extreme personal attacks on other editors, which are a gross violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPA policy.

I'm not going to block you now, but please consider this a final warning that any further similar rants are likely to get you blocked from editing for an extended period without any further warnings. Please also note the warning about contempt of court at the top of that talk page. I've expunged the relevant edits from the talk page history. -- The Anome (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Indefinite for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you thought you were doing , it is utterly unacceptable here on Wikipedia. If you continue this abuse on this talkpage, your access will be removed. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2021 (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).

Betathetapi545 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There was no personal attack. That is a lie. Go look at what I wrote. I never mentioned any editor. Why do you think it is a personal attack when there was no personal attack? Betathetapi545 (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I think you work for a PR firm, and the PR firm has been hired by Maxwell's family and/or lawyers in order to keep her image as clean as possible because her trial is days away". And let's stay away from your comment that was clearly antisemitic. The block is one of the most appropriate blocks I've seen in my time on Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2021 (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.

What part of my comment was anti-semitic? You seem to want to launch a personal attack on me without providing any evidence.Betathetapi545 (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And how is working for a PR firm a "personal attack"??? Almost all PR firms are perfectly legitimate. They are hired to present a clean image of people and firms. There is nothing wrong with that. You seem to think that working for a public relations company is dirty or something. There is no attack. It is all in your mind.Betathetapi545 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote what part of my post you thought was a personal attack. I have no interest in personal attacks. It is very difficult to defend against what you claim when you do not provide any evidenc. Again, please quote what you consider to be a personal attack. Thank you. Betathetapi545 (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for admins to justify your block to you, or quote any part of what you have written; they have access to your complete edit history, whether or not it's been redacted from public view, and can make their own judgement based on that. The burden is on you to demonstrate your willingness to change your behavior to justify why you might be allowed to edit again. The primary consideration in this is the health of the encyclopedia project. Please see the guide to appealing blocks for more information on this. -- The Anome (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if anyone unblocked you as you clearly don't understand why you were blocked so it's unlikely that you could change. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-blocked

...as EricSavage (talk · contribs). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]