User talk:Jacob Daniel Anderson

Jacob- However your belief is incorrect. I explained what is acceptable in a court room as my reason for edit.

Feel free to block me. There's only protection of Documents happening.

July 2017

Hello, I'm Adam9007. I noticed that you recently removed content from Judicial interpretation 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 the 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. Adam9007 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Judicial interpretation. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Judicial interpretation was changed by Jacob Daniel Anderson (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.967492 on 2017-07-01T02:39:14+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Judicial interpretation, you may be blocked from editing. Adam9007 (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Judicial interpretation. Meters (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Jacob Daniel Anderson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18627 was submitted on Jul 01, 2017 03:12:13. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]