User talk:Montalk123

June 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Yuan dynasty, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Yuan dynasty, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Imperial Chinese harem system. Jim1138 (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:NOTCENSORED Jim1138 (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see wp:NOTFREESPEECH Jim1138 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stop blocking and reverting my edits and supporting SEXIST and OBVIOUSLY PRO CHINESE RACISM>

Use talk pages

Suggest starting a discussion on talk:Yuan dynasty and talk:Imperial Chinese harem system. See help:talk pages Jim1138 (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the wp:talk page guidelines and thread your talk. New comments should go below old ones and new threads go on the bottom. I reformatted your comments as best as I could. Jim1138 (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Hello, I'm JackintheBox. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Qing dynasty— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 05:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 12:42, 13 April 2020 (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).

Montalk123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was correcting and commenting on factual mistakes on many pages, especially of those who have been banned or deemed to be sockpuppets

Decline reason:

Your edits were totally inappropriate and the block is necessary to prevent you harming Wikipedia further. If you don't see this, you have no place here. Yamla (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2020 (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.