User talk:Sleepeeg3

Image copyright problem with Image:1993GrandWagoneer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1993GrandWagoneer.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, I'm 2601:188:180:11F0:B5F9:ABB8:2E56:9AA0. I noticed that you recently removed content 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. 2601:188:180:11F0:B5F9:ABB8:2E56:9AA0 (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't continue to remove well sourced content from an article, as you have at John F. Kelly, only to replace it with outdated sources. The subject's stance on issues of immigration has been well documented in the last year by multiple sources, and is at variance with the 2017 assessment before he became chief of staff. If you have further questions, please discuss them at the article talk page. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Neutrality^talk 20:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should also be aware of Wikipedia's three-revert rule. You are currently at the three-revert limit at John F. Kelly. Thanks, Neutrality^talk 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Violating AE restrictions, logging out to evade scrutiny, possible compromised / sleeper account.

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: Guy (Help!) 08:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, comparing [1] with your edits at John F. Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am dubious that the anonymous edits are anyone other than you. The notice above suggests this may be a deliberate attempt to evade scrutiny. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 29 May 2018 (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).

Sleepeeg3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If your only method to suppress free speech from legitimate, reliably sourced articles is to ban users for dubious reasons, so be it. I did nothing to evade scrutiny. Cheers.

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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2018 (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.