User talk:Scott Dinah

unblock me pleaze

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).

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

Request reason:

I am so sorry. I did not know that I had to sign my posts on talk pages. For now on, I will leave other users pages alone and will not be bothered to edit them... And by the way, I AM DEFINITELY NOT the person called such name in the block.

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. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 17 February 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.

February 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Bobherry Talk Edits 16:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Phillips

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as User talk:Phillips, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bhaq786 (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:SineBot. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But my posts keeps getting signed by him Scott Dinah (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's... kind of the point. Primefac (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BUT I DON'T WANT IT Scott Dinah (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are opt-out instructions on the bot's page. That's a heck of a lot better than being petulant. Primefac (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours from from certain pages (User:Sinebot and User talk:Sinebot) for disruptively editing them. 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 ~~~~}}. Primefac (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think you can do that Scott Dinah (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't give instructions on how to opt out if you couldn't do it. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant don't think you can block me Scott Dinah (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Dinah, looks like they can. You were being disruptive, that's what tends to happen. Just sign your own posts, leave sinebot alone, and it won't happen again. Or carry on as you were and get permanently blocked. Your call. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Dinah Use {{NoAutosign}} on talk page. 3125A^{Talk!_{Contributions!}} 13:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]