User talk:Tharploki1

Listen, Tharploki1, I don't know what your issue is, but the way you have been comporting yourself towards me is highly uncivil and cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason for you to name-call, and certainly not to insinuate that I am a vandal. I am a reputable Wikieditor, as my page demonstrates, and I have clearly explained elsewhere why I am changing the word "actress" to "actor". The fact that this displeases you or that you disagree with it is one thing, and you can certainly revert my edits while providing a rational explanation for your actions. The way you have gone about it so far, however, suggests that you are unhinged, and even on a personal vendetta against me (Sharon Stone (film) this article is an example of that - I performed a perfectly legitimate edit and you reverted it in its entirety, providing a nonsensical reason for this action). This suggests that you have been tracking my latest edits and that you are intent on reverting them, as if on principle. Your behaviour borders on WikiBullying (Wikipedia:WikiBullying), and if you continue, I will report you for it and ask that you be blocked. werewolf (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ingrid Bergman performances, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also? Making personal attacks in edit summaries is grounds for blocking on its own; accusing people of not understanding English, while you are making factually incorrect assertions about the English language, is simply a bit sad. --bonadea contributions talk 11:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 11:24, 8 June 2019 (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).

Tharploki1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't do anything. Of course I am here to "build an encyclopedia." I was undoing blatant vandalism by an illiterate far-left political activist who was referring to women as men. I'll also not that I was banned by a communist. This is further proof that Wikipedia is a left-st propaganda and fake news site dominated by radical leftists and hysterical libfems.

Decline reason:

Ah ha. Talk page access revoked. That leaves you with WP:UTRS if you can act in a civilised manner. Yamla (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2019 (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.

I am the anomaly. Wikipedia is generally centrist. That you are so far to the right you can't see that is not our cross to bear. El_C 17:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]