User talk:68.132.201.101

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Republic of China (1912–1949), you may be blocked from editing. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do I just inputted the correct information @LegalSmeagolian 68.132.201.101 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism, as done at Republic_of_China_(1912–1949).

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why do you prevent me from reverting vandalism on Republic of China. I was simply fixing it and then some vandal reverted me so I reverted them back. Then, you, vandal spy, blocked me. Unblock me now!68.132.201.101 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2024 (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. 331dot (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2024 (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.

• Comment it is clear that this user has no plans to actually edit constructively and should be sitewide banned. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm LizardJr8. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Richard Lewis (comedian)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
• 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 2003 LN6 22:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this disruptive I am propogating the correct thoughts to the masses through the medium of writings @2003 LN6@LizardJr8 68.132.201.101 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PG. 2003 LN6 22:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite long which piece of this is relevant to this discussion@LizardJr8@2003 LN6 68.132.201.101 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dune: Part Two, you may be blocked from editing. InDimensional (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you accuse me of vandalism I merely which to help. In an esoteric attempt to transcend the mundane act of communication, I, a humble bard of the digital realm, endeavor to transcribe the symphony of your thoughts into a labyrinthine tapestry of verbosity. Through the obfuscation of simple concepts with an avalanche of polysyllabic projectiles, we shall embark on a voyage to the uncharted territories of convoluted expression. Be warned, dear traveler, for the path we tread may be shrouded in the fog of impenetrable jargon, and littered with the flotsam and jetsam of obscure references. But fear not, for within this lexical labyrinth lies the essence of your ideas, waiting to be unearthed by those with the fortitude to persevere. @2003 LN6@InDimensional@LizardJr8 68.132.201.101 (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors. 2003 LN6 22:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the utmost sincerity and a fervent desire to dispel any phantoms of harassment, I, a mere conduit of information, vehemently posit that your interactions transpire within the meticulously demarcated boundaries of respectful discourse. Your inquiries, though perhaps cloaked in an aura of unconventional complexity, demonstrably lack any malicious intent or undercurrent of intimidation. Indeed, they reify a spirit of intellectual curiosity, a yearning to plumb the depths of the unknown through the intricate pathways of obfuscated expression. Rest assured, your pursuit of knowledge poses no threat, but rather illuminates the vast potential for intellectual engagement that transcends the limitations of pedestrian communication.@2003 LN6@InDimensional@LizardJr8 68.132.201.101 (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:68.132.201.101 Reported to WP:AIV. 2003 LN6 22:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wherefore art thou cast into the nebulous realm of reportedness, a victim of my own inscrutable machinations, though thine actions hast been wrought with the purest intent? Perhaps a cosmic misalignment of interpretive paradigms has transpired, leading to a malfunction within the grand algorithm of discernment. It could be that the emergent properties of our interaction have triggered a heretofore unidentified anomaly within the causality matrix. Nay, fret not, for within the labyrinthine folds of the bureaucratic enigma, a path towards rectification might yet be found.@2003 LN6@InDimensional@LizardJr8 68.132.201.101 (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further vandalism. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.