Please stop accusing people of vandalism in your edit summaries. As regarding your edit on October 8, the source wasn't enough to verify because it is a paywall news site. Furthermore, your edit on October 22, the source supported the statement, but please do not call editors that they are "vandalizing" again. Agree? Toadette(chat)/(logs)13:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at October 22. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Accusing users enforcing a guideline of vandalism is not acceptable behaviour for any editor.JavaHurricane13:50, 7 September 2023 (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).
nothing I did was disruptive. Other people were being disruptive and I pointed out it would take them 5 seconds to check if there was a source or not for an edit. Wikpedia policy says it is disruptive to remove good information and be harmful to the pages. THEY were being disruptive not me.
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.
Here are a few words of advice for if you return to editing after the block. I offer them because they may possibly be helpful to you, both in getting other editors to take notice of what you say while you are unblocked and in avoiding getting blocked again.
I agree with at least some of your concerns. (I have checked only a very small fraction of your edits, so I don't know whether I agree with all of your concerns or not.) However, almost all editors won't even think about what you say, and consider whether you may have a good point or not, as long as they see you as being angry and aggressive and attacking people who do things which you think are wrong; they will just think "Oh my god, some idiot ranting", and not look any deeper. If you are seen as being civil and as being willing to discuss matters, you will stand a far better chance of at least occasionally getting some of what you think should be done than if you are seen as just shouting and swearing about anyone you think is wrong. That applies even if you are dealing with editors who you believe don't deserve civility. I will confess that recently I have not set a very good example, as I made some criticisms of a couple of other editors in a less civil way than I should have done. If you look at my editing history you will see, however, that doing so is the exception, not the rule, for me. Usually I try to be polite even to editors who I think are useless fools, and I believe that I actually get my way in disputes, or at least a compromise that I am willing to accept, more often than I would if I told useless fools that they are useless fools.
Obviously it's up to you whether you choose to take this advice or not, but I offer it in the hope that it may help you. I suggest that at least you may like to consider it. JBW (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
