User talk:Colejohanson12

December 2022

Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I noticed that you recently removed content from Matt Walsh (political commentator) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your 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. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what??? they removed my edit without explanation and all i did was revert it back! Colejohanson12 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2022 (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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

appeal

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).

Colejohanson12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did NOT vandalise. You banned me for making a constructive edit that I am 99% sure that you did not read. If taking POV language out of Matt Walsh's page is considered vandalism, then whateverColejohanson12 (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked, not banned, there is a difference. Since you think there was nothing wrong with your edits, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2022 (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.

This edit is vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how so? Colejohanson12 (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of making the UCF edit, I hadn't read the rules carefully and realized after that I was wrong to make that edit. What I don't understand is the Matt Walsh edit. I removed POV language and the accusation of Matt being far-right. Colejohanson12 (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not remove any POV or accusatory language. The statement of them being far-right was reliably sourced. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "source" was an opinion article from usa today in which the only mentioning of Matt Walsh was "and far-right commentators such as Matthew Walsh, a columnist and podcaster who has urged an “aggressive” approach to battle drag shows, which he likened to fighting cancer. USA Today did not cite ANY sources for this claim. Colejohanson12 (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna waste time arguing with someone who denies reliable sources. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And i'm not gonna waste time arguing with someone who thinks usa today opinion articles are reliable sources. 😁 Colejohanson12 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]