User talk:Jobee Dalog Labasan

October 2017

Hello, I'm Hamtechperson. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Pope Boniface VIII— because it did not appear constructive. 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. Ham tech person 02:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also October 2017

Your recent edits re image files appears to be non-constructive. Changing the name of the image file may effect the display, or cause it not to display at all. (not to mention blanking the page). Please stop. Mannanan51 (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted. Mannanan51, please have a look. The ones that I looked at all replaced existing images with ones from one specific source--there's nothing wrong with that in itself, but there is no reason we should have all popes illustrated with all the same images. Discuss on talk page please. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you to stop, and you didn't. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What talk page? Mannanan51 (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There has been plenty of discussion previously, and the consensus is not to use the ghastly and entirely imaginary modern images (with questionable copyright status), but to use the (fairly poor for older popes) alternatives. Note that at Innocent III he replaced an actual contemporary portrait. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies: NB User:Job Labasan, a banned sockpuppet, who was doing the same edits a few weeks ago. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Johnbod, shoot, I thought that name sounded familiar. Thanks. Jobee Dalog Labasan, you have seriously harmed any kind of Wikipedia career you might have aspired to. Not only have you drawn or rekindled the interest of a half a dozen administrators, but also of a couple of editors who regularly visit these articles and who will now have every license they might want or need to revert you on sight. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I Want to Unblock You but How Simple Lang Ako (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]