User talk:Makgeeky

February 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 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 ~~~~}}. ... discospinster _talk 17:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

My concern is that one of the moderators tried to block MakGeeky. MakGeeky is making edits to correct the article under “Makhanda (prophet).” The infringed article indicates “Makhanda also spelled Makana.” No, it’s not spelled that way.” Leave the article alone or delete it completely. His name was Makana. Would you kindly correct the article. Secondly he was of Royal bloodline. From the Wiki photo the text indicates “A Statute of Chief Makana.” In South Africa you can’t be a commoner and be a chief. MakGeeky was right to get the moderator to delete the word commoner out of the article. Never include unreliable sources, only include credible sources or the article starts looking like bias and personal attacks. The moderator also needs to watch where the users place their punctuations. User Discospinster and Ohnoitsjamie want to block but can’t seem to notice that the apostrophe is misplaced in the article right by the name Makhanda and that's just at the first sentence. The article also indicates "it’s unclear when Makana encountered Christianity." Well if it’s unclear, don’t include what you don’t know. Kindly amend the article or delete it completely. Makgeeky (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be trying to justify your disruptive behavior, not telling us why it was disruptive. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 20 February 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.

{{Db-f7}}, {{Db-badfairuse}} – for immediate F7 deletions {{Db-f7}}, {{Db-badfaith}} – for immediate F7 deletions. The page exist only to disparage prophet Makhanda. It was written in bad faith. It incites racial hostility.

Doubling/tripling down on an argument that's already been rejected in an unblock request leaves me with zero confidence that the next block you'll get from tilting at this windmill will have an expiration date. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské Couriano it has been rejected that Makhanda or Makana was a commoner. The article was untrue and misleading. In the very Wikipedia photo the caption indicates, "Chief Makana." Where do you find a chief being associated as a commoner. Exactly, we took it down. The article reads like it's inciting personal attacks and not including credible sources, citations and actual events that tell the true objective life story of a prophet. Those users are not supposed to use their personal feelings, opinions and tilt the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhanda_(prophet). Prophet Makana was mixed Xhosa and Khoi-San, light skin. The previous photo that was posted with him in the Leopard skin as a light-to-brown skin chief should have remained. For one, culturally the leopard skin indicates Royalty in South Africa. For two, he's light skin from credible sources. You and the users don't get to decide that he's dark skin because you want to.

I take absolutely no position on the overall content dispute; do not assume I'm someone to be persuaded in this matter. Once again, you're only damaging your own case for unblocking. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské Couriano, you took the wrong position. This is for record-keeping, and for future knowledge. keep on being condescending. As prophet Makhanda said, Russia will have last word on what gets taken down.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. 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. 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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were only blocked for 31 hours yet you created a new account to get around the block. As such, I have made this block two weeks. Probably should have been longer, and it will be should the block evasion continue. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, you and your bots are violating user rights. You’re in non-compliance. China has blocked you and Wikipedia. Exactly, it’s block you 🤖 Mak Geekyy (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no bots. If you support Chinese government censorship and think they should decide what you see for you, that is your business. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

Given your continued use of sockpuppets (specifically Mak Geekyy) for making disruptive edits that demonstrate a hostile attitude that is incompatible with a collaborative editing environment, I have blocked you indefinitely. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following below this notice: {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]