User talk:Soymilksogood

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).

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

Request reason:

Other user using multiple accounts to revert my input. Soymilksogood (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Kuru (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2013 (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.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Holt Renfrew, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holt Renfrew

By continuing to edit war on the article you will achieve nothing (apart from another block, possibly indefinite). If your additions to the article are not being accepted by other editors you can start a discussion on the article's talk page, there you can explain why you think that the information should be included. Peter James (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that, more than a year later, you are edit warring again on the Holt Renfrew article, trying to insert the same questionable text. If you do not heed Peter's advice above, and you keep on with this behaviour, you will likely be blocked again. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Holt Renfrew. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Seriously? Nothing has changed since last year - no new sources, no new coverage, and you are still ignoring all the explanations and reasons you were given back then as to why your edits are not appropriate? Just because 18 months have passed doesn't mean it's not still edit warring when you resume your behaviour. Mabalu (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Mabalu with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. ... discospinster _talk 14:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Mabalu with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ... discospinster _talk 14:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for Vandalism. If you feel this block is unjustified, you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ... discospinster _talk 14:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]