User talk:HighlyReferenced

This is in response to the warning message you posted on my talk page, calling me a vandal and warning me to stop. Hello. Are you effing serious? You are a brand-new Wikipedia editor with three edits to your name. And I reverted exactly one (1) of your edits and when you reverted it back, I did not touch it again. So please stop making empty threats about having me blocked from editing Wikipedia pages. Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Beauty School Dropout (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

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 ~~~~}}. Alex Shih (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked by users with apparent bias. The only things I did were as follows: 1. Added reliable references to a page. 2. Undid a number of vandalisms of my references, including one by the user who got me blocked Beauty School Dropout. 3. Responded without insult to a rude message by the same user, who, after vandalising my edit, sent a message beginning "Are you effing serious?", which is clearly inappropriate, and called me a clown. I did nothing rude in response to this. I know that Wikipedia has a reputation for being unreliable, but I didn't think biased edits, vandalism, rude messages, and insults could be used by the user who perpetrated them, in this case Beauty School Dropout, to get someone banned, just because the other user has been here longer.( HighlyReferenced (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2017 (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. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2017 (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.

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I gave very specific reasons previously, but in response to the reasons for the declining of my unblock request, the block is not necessary to prevent damage to Wikipedia. I carried out no damage, I simply added a very small note with appropriate, reliable references, to help remove some of the bias on an article. I did not know that undoing vandalism counted as edit warring, considering the history I have seen on pages where registered users have undone edits (citing 'vandalism', sometimes inappropriately) multiple times within a short period. Is it one rule for long-term members (or members from the USA, and therefore racism) and another rule for those who just signed up (or are not American, as most of the admins and editors seem to be)? HighlyReferenced (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The same rule applies to everyone, no matter where they are from, and trying to claim that somehow you're being oppressed, when nobody here has any way of knowing who you are or where you are from, doesn't help your case. Your "very small note with appropraite, reliable references" was either deliberately disruptive or indicative that you are not able to distinguish what is disruptive and what is not. It was reverted. You proceeded to pitch your toys out of the pram accusing the editors reverting your disruptive edits of vandalism and threatening to have them blocked. The fact you insist you are right does not make you right, and the fact you insist those reverting you are vandals does not make them vandals. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 11 December 2017 (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.

Talk page access revoked

due to personal attacks. If you wish to make further requests for unblock, please use WP:UTRS. Good day. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]