User talk:DerryGer120

.

December 2024

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).

DerryGer120 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here there is no reason to block

Decline reason:

That you managed to mangle this page when adding this unblock request, and your altering of the AFC notice above supports the block reasoning. It isn't just about the content of edits, it's also about how careful you are about the effect of your edits. The noticeboard incident all comes from your carelessness in making an edit, and how you reacted when it was pointed out to you. So, I'm afraid that I can't agree with you that the block wasn't necessary. Nthep (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

Your thread has been archived

Hello DerryGer120! The thread you created at the Teahouse, To add more references, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)