User talk:Free Press USA

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).

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

Request reason:

I did nothing wrong the people who blocked me were biased and they got angry and blocked me because I gave the real facts about Travis Allen. I should be unblocked. They gave no real reason why I was even blocked. If I am not unblocked I might sue

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2018 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

I wish to be unblocked I do not know why I was blocked thanks

Decline reason:

You're blocked because you used Wikipedia for political propaganda, and now also for legal threats. Maybe you should read the comments you removed. Also, please do not remove declined unblock requests while the block remains in effect. Huon (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2018 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

I wasn't using wikipedia for political reasons. Thats completely untrue I was stating the facts and sources. You may look into the facts and sources showing that I am not lying. The people who blocked me love Travis Allen and they do not want the truth to get out. I now want to get un blocked.Thanks

Decline reason:

I only had to look at one of your edits to see that you were clearly editing with an agenda, making sure that views you support had prominent locations in a BLP clearly of someone with the opposite political persuasion as you. That is not consistent with the goal of building an encyclopedia. Unfounded accusations of a conspiracy also are reason to keep you blocked. As such, I am declining this request. When you are ready to collaborate with other editors in a manner consistent with providing a neutral point of view, and stop pushing an agenda, you can make a new request. Addition- legal threats are also reason to keep you blocked, in and of themselves. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2018 (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.

.

I did not use false info or no sources.

I have asked you before to not remove declined unblock requests while the block remains in effect. See WP:OWNTALK for the relevant policy. If you keep on doing that, you may lose talk page access. Also, reliability of sources is a concern. A website "Paid for by John Cox for Governor 2018" hardly is a reliable source on Cox' competitors. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political propaganda. Huon (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it is because it gives facts from other SOURCES to like Planned Parenthoods own web page about Travis Allen. You have not shown the sources to be un reliable, the things on it are the FACTS. Your the one breaking Wikipedias rules and your Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia)If you do not show the facts. I want to be un blocked now because you and the other people have not shown substanisal evidence why I need to be blocked. The only way I see you keeping me blocked is that your a Travis Allen supporter. Thanks

I looked at your thing I'm not breaking any rules by deleting things on wikipedia i quote "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages."

(talk page stalker) Comment to patrolling admins: Other unblock requests have apparently been removed (see page history) by blocked user. - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 21:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not just posting facts, you are posting them in a manner consistent with your political persuasion in a manner clearly designed to be critical of the people whose articles you are editing. I have also restored the declined unblock requests, they must remain until the block is lifted. If you remove them again, I will remove your talk page access. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning, do not remove prior requests again. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your selective quoting of the guideline is as productive as your editing. "There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]