User talk:ThiefOfBagdad

Spread love, not hate.

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, ThiefOfBagdad! Thank you for your contributions. I am Rubbish computer and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down

Thank you for your WP:BOLD edits on Donald Trump, but please slow down and discuss major changes on the article talk page. You removed content that was crafted by several other editors, including removing sources. You also introduced grammatical errors. Your edits are contentious, so it's important that you seek consensus on the talk page, as conspicuously noted in the edit notice each time you have edited the article. Thank you.- Mr X 00:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most watched television interviews, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC and The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Trump Doctrine

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Trump Doctrine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-trump-doctrine-peace-through-strength-15631. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toohool (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Lenora Fulani.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lenora Fulani.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Majora (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most watched television interviews, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC and Bill O’Reilly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:McCormackEllen.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:McCormackEllen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fred Trump.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fred Trump.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please be more cautious at the Donald Trump article. You have already broken the three-revert-rule at that article.

[1] 12:45 on 8 May 2016
[2] 9:33 on 8 May 2016
[3] 22:00 on 7 May 2016
[4] 17:43 on 7 May 2016

Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elvena Lloyd-Dufﬁe.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Elvena Lloyd-Dufﬁe.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton

Just in case you weren't aware that today is your lucky day, another editor received a 1-week block today for disregarding the discretionary sanctions notices (talk page and edit notice) at Hillary Clinton. Your edit was quite obviously "potentially contentious", and it had no consensus at all, let alone the "firm" consensus required by both notices. Please don't do that again. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the above is remarkably similar to comments by MrX on 29 March, farther above. It appears you didn't take them to heart. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Hi, ThiefOfBagdad. Care to explain this edit? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure in American English, it's mugshot, not mug shot. And as this is an American attack and mostly Americans will look at this page, it shouldn't be in British English.

File:Omar Mir Mateen.jpg

Thank you for contribution to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. However, the image that you added is of the perpetrator of the attacks. While tragic as the incident is, unfree images of perpetrators have been deleted per FFD nominations. In fact, the article is not about the perpetrator mainly but the incident, so omitting the image doesn't affect readers' understanding of the incident per WP:NFCC. If a source that you can provide proves that the image is free to use, maybe I'll allow the image to be kept. Otherwise, if unfree, maybe it'll be deleted soon. --George Ho (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you copied to Commons, but I'm worried that the image will be deleted there as copyrighted. If that happens, shall I request a speedy deletion then? --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but please don't get it removed from Commons. Thanks! ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Hello, I'm ATS. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! 🖖ATS / Talk 06:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.

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, you may be blocked from editing. This move (which you falsely marked as minor) was disruptive. There is no consensus for such a move. I've suggested before that you slow down, so I'm making this a level 3 warning. This type of reckless editing on highly-visible articles is likely to get you blocked if you aren't more careful in the future. - Mr X 14:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Donald Trump. Doc talk 08:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. Where did I do original research? Everything is provided in the sources given? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly an account here to edit controversial recent topics. You've got barely any edits, and have less to lose by reverting. I think you're full of it. You can't just write stuff like this[5] unchallenged, without discussion, on a sanctioned article. I hope someone reverts you soon. Doc talk 08:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? I've been here for almost half a year and I've been editing all sorts of articles, not just "controversial" articles. I've been a major editor for List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates for example. I'm simply interested in elections and everything surounding it. And I'm not doing anything that hasn't been discussed before. I've already discussed in archives of TALK that major sections should be shortened and made less biased, as a large portion of the article seems to be majorly critical of Trump, largely relying on sources close to the Clinton campaign. I'm just trying to make it more neutral, and I'm definitely not "full of it." Frankly, you're being very rude to me. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was rude. I apologize for that. Doc talk 23:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, that means a lot :) Thank you and God bless you!! --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates votes cut off limit on chart

OK, after going through the list I can see why you might want to set the cutoff at 30,000 votes. I'd prefer a cutoff at 5 digits (10,000) but that means an asterix explaining why Jeness and Evelyn Reed both ran for president on the Socialist Workers Party ticket instead of there being a single nominee (I'm still confused by it). 20,000 guarantees that the Workers World Party most successful woman gets in the chart but it still seems wrong that Stein, who is polling at 6% nationally, isn't on the chart if 20k is the cutoff (Sanders, likely got most of her primary votes as Greens switched to Democratic ballots). It would be nice to have a picture of all the women that received 10k+ votes. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a picture is very hard to do though. And there are definitely a lot of women who have gotten over 10,000 votes. There had be some kind of cutoff, and 30,000 seems to work for now. Don't tell me this is all just to include Jill Stein. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the women that received over 10,000 that are in the article are listed in the chart. You know of more that are not in the article? 97.85.173.38 (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down at Donald Trump

Please don't remove huge amounts of sourced content from a highly watched article without first having a discussion on the article's talk page. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamist terrorist attacks in developed countries

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of Islamist terrorist attacks in developed countries. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of Islamist terrorist attacks – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Islamist terrorist attacks in developed countries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Islamist terrorist attacks in developed countries is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Islamist terrorist attacks in developed countries until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Maile (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

Please don't call people liars and jerks on article talk pages. It is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. The following is a templated warning about American Politics articles and talk pages, which seem to be your primary focus. ~Awilley (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

Welcome!

Hi. I see that you are relatively new (newer even than I am) and that you were jumped by another editor for what appears to have been a good-faith effort to add a list of Islamist terrorist attacks in developed countries. It takes a while to find your sealegs. What I want to say is that this is a place where tone, language, and following rules can outweigh good intentions. Moreover, some editors (skilled wikilawyers) wield disingenuousness and dissimulation as a shield for aggressive POV editing. It is easy to get blocked from the project by editors who simply dislike your politics - but who use some rules-related pretext to ban you. I hope that, rather than allowing this to discourage you, you figure out the local etiquette and continue to contribute. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LGBT Olympians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jessica Harrison (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Euro 2016 Final.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Euro 2016 Final.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump

ThiefOfBagdad, thanks for your interest in improving this article. But you can't do it the way you are doing it - imposing your own opinion, over-ruling other people and ignoring consensus. That article is under Discretionary sanctions, which specifically forbid things like reverting more than once, or restoring controversial material without consensus. There is a discussion about your changes at the article's talk page. Please join it, and don't keep insisting on your own version of things in the meantime. That can be a blockable offense at an article under Discretionary Sanctions. Thanks, and see you at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

Hi TheifOfBagdad, I was just heading over to give you a stern warning about edit warring on Donald Trump, but upon arriving here I found that User:MelanieN had already advised you of the WP:1RR discretionary sanctions, just 24 hours before your latest 1RR violation. Upon digging deeper I found a much longer history of what looks like tendentious editing. For instance, looking at only the past 3 days I found 5 edits of yours aimed at removing mention of Trump's "Muslim ban". [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] I also noticed that about half of your edits are related to Donald Trump and the 2016 election. Instead of blocking you, which would remove your ability to edit all articles, I'm going to impose a temporary 6-month topic ban on articles and pages related to the 2016 US Presidential election. I hope that you can use this time to branch out and gain editing experience in other areas, and that after the ban expires you can return to editing articles about US politics with a fresh perspective.

I highly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban so you know what this entails, and to unwatchlist affected pages to avoid any accidents. This ban can be appealed at the WP:Administrators' Noticeboard, and will be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#American_politics_2. ~Awilley (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ban appeal

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I'm utterly shocked to see that I have been blocked from editing anything related to the 2016 Presidential election, after all of the work that I've done. Half of Donald Trump's page has been improved by me, and nobody ever seemed to complain. I've even gotten dozens of "Thank you's" for my edits there. Now I'm being told I'm banned for attempting to write the truth about him because ONE editor who seems to hate me (and has talked to me very rudely) disagrees with me? Trump has repeatadly said that his proposed "Muslim ban" from December 2015 is scrapped, and that it is to be replaced with a ban based on territories. I have given ridiculous amounts of proof for this in the Talk page. A lot of editors have agreed with me that this "Muslim ban" needs to be taken away, as it is simply not correct anymore. But ONE editor, who based on her editing habits regurarly edited Hillary Clinton and Tim Kain's pages, seemed to consistenly want to keep the "Muslim ban" in the lead. She was pushing an insane amount of bias in the page, and I was trying to get rid of it. Now I'm being punished for it? All the other editors agreed with me. Even Melanie who sent me a warning, which I respected, said to me in the Talk page she liked my new lead ideas to not include the Muslim ban phrase. The only person taking issue with it was ONE editor. Now, most editors were agreeing with me that the new lead without the Muslim ban thing was at least better to what we had now, so I was bold (which is encouraged by Wikipedia) and I obviously replaced that section. Than the ONE editor reverts it and tells me "we" hadn't reached consensus. What? She was REFUSING to even discuss the new section, even AFTER I explicitely asked her to discuss it in Talk. I have worked so hard on that page, and I have NEVER tried to be inflicted in edit wars. But when people refuse to discuss things in Talk, a majority of people in Talk agree on something, I decide to change it, then that person REVERTS it and tells me there is somehow "no consensus", I change it back, so then I'm the "edit warmonger"? No... It is simply not fair. And I'm asking you to through the surface and see that I've never tried but to HELP and IMPROVE the page, including with Talk consensus. This is devastating to me, as I've done nothing but be nice and try to follow the rules as much as possible, while other people are rude, don't follow the rules, and then attack me for wanting to help. Please reconsider this.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'm utterly shocked to see that I have been blocked from editing anything related to the 2016 Presidential election, after '''all''' of the work that I've done. Half of Donald Trump's page has been improved by me, and nobody ever seemed to complain. I've even gotten dozens of "Thank you's" for my edits there. Now I'm being told I'm banned for attempting to write the truth about him because ONE editor who seems to hate me (and has talked to me very rudely) disagrees with me? Trump has repeatadly said that his proposed "Muslim ban" from December 2015 is scrapped, and that it is to be replaced with a ban based on territories. I have given ridiculous amounts of proof for this in the Talk page. A lot of editors have agreed with me that this "Muslim ban" needs to be taken away, as it is simply not correct anymore. But ONE editor, who based on her editing habits regurarly edited Hillary Clinton and Tim Kain's pages, seemed to consistenly want to keep the "Muslim ban" in the lead. She was pushing an insane amount of bias in the page, and I was trying to get rid of it. Now I'm being punished for it? All the other editors agreed with me. Even Melanie who sent me a warning, which I respected, said to me in the Talk page she liked my new lead ideas to not include the Muslim ban phrase. The only person taking issue with it was ONE editor. Now, most editors were agreeing with me that the new lead without the Muslim ban thing was at least better to what we had now, so I was bold (which is encouraged by Wikipedia) and I obviously replaced that section. Than the ONE editor reverts it and tells me "we" hadn't reached consensus. What? She was REFUSING to even discuss the new section, even AFTER I explicitely asked her to discuss it in Talk. I have worked so hard on that page, and I have NEVER tried to be inflicted in edit wars. But when people refuse to discuss things in Talk, a majority of people in Talk agree on something, I decide to change it, then that person REVERTS it and tells me there is somehow "no consensus", I change it back, so then I'm the "edit warmonger"? No... It is simply not fair. And I'm asking you to through the surface and see that I've never tried but to HELP and IMPROVE the page, including with Talk consensus. This is devastating to me, as I've done nothing but be nice and try to follow the rules as much as possible, while other people are rude, don't follow the rules, and then attack me for wanting to help. Please reconsider this. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm utterly shocked to see that I have been blocked from editing anything related to the 2016 Presidential election, after '''all''' of the work that I've done. Half of Donald Trump's page has been improved by me, and nobody ever seemed to complain. I've even gotten dozens of "Thank you's" for my edits there. Now I'm being told I'm banned for attempting to write the truth about him because ONE editor who seems to hate me (and has talked to me very rudely) disagrees with me? Trump has repeatadly said that his proposed "Muslim ban" from December 2015 is scrapped, and that it is to be replaced with a ban based on territories. I have given ridiculous amounts of proof for this in the Talk page. A lot of editors have agreed with me that this "Muslim ban" needs to be taken away, as it is simply not correct anymore. But ONE editor, who based on her editing habits regurarly edited Hillary Clinton and Tim Kain's pages, seemed to consistenly want to keep the "Muslim ban" in the lead. She was pushing an insane amount of bias in the page, and I was trying to get rid of it. Now I'm being punished for it? All the other editors agreed with me. Even Melanie who sent me a warning, which I respected, said to me in the Talk page she liked my new lead ideas to not include the Muslim ban phrase. The only person taking issue with it was ONE editor. Now, most editors were agreeing with me that the new lead without the Muslim ban thing was at least better to what we had now, so I was bold (which is encouraged by Wikipedia) and I obviously replaced that section. Than the ONE editor reverts it and tells me "we" hadn't reached consensus. What? She was REFUSING to even discuss the new section, even AFTER I explicitely asked her to discuss it in Talk. I have worked so hard on that page, and I have NEVER tried to be inflicted in edit wars. But when people refuse to discuss things in Talk, a majority of people in Talk agree on something, I decide to change it, then that person REVERTS it and tells me there is somehow "no consensus", I change it back, so then I'm the "edit warmonger"? No... It is simply not fair. And I'm asking you to through the surface and see that I've never tried but to HELP and IMPROVE the page, including with Talk consensus. This is devastating to me, as I've done nothing but be nice and try to follow the rules as much as possible, while other people are rude, don't follow the rules, and then attack me for wanting to help. Please reconsider this. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm utterly shocked to see that I have been blocked from editing anything related to the 2016 Presidential election, after '''all''' of the work that I've done. Half of Donald Trump's page has been improved by me, and nobody ever seemed to complain. I've even gotten dozens of "Thank you's" for my edits there. Now I'm being told I'm banned for attempting to write the truth about him because ONE editor who seems to hate me (and has talked to me very rudely) disagrees with me? Trump has repeatadly said that his proposed "Muslim ban" from December 2015 is scrapped, and that it is to be replaced with a ban based on territories. I have given ridiculous amounts of proof for this in the Talk page. A lot of editors have agreed with me that this "Muslim ban" needs to be taken away, as it is simply not correct anymore. But ONE editor, who based on her editing habits regurarly edited Hillary Clinton and Tim Kain's pages, seemed to consistenly want to keep the "Muslim ban" in the lead. She was pushing an insane amount of bias in the page, and I was trying to get rid of it. Now I'm being punished for it? All the other editors agreed with me. Even Melanie who sent me a warning, which I respected, said to me in the Talk page she liked my new lead ideas to not include the Muslim ban phrase. The only person taking issue with it was ONE editor. Now, most editors were agreeing with me that the new lead without the Muslim ban thing was at least better to what we had now, so I was bold (which is encouraged by Wikipedia) and I obviously replaced that section. Than the ONE editor reverts it and tells me "we" hadn't reached consensus. What? She was REFUSING to even discuss the new section, even AFTER I explicitely asked her to discuss it in Talk. I have worked so hard on that page, and I have NEVER tried to be inflicted in edit wars. But when people refuse to discuss things in Talk, a majority of people in Talk agree on something, I decide to change it, then that person REVERTS it and tells me there is somehow "no consensus", I change it back, so then I'm the "edit warmonger"? No... It is simply not fair. And I'm asking you to through the surface and see that I've never tried but to HELP and IMPROVE the page, including with Talk consensus. This is devastating to me, as I've done nothing but be nice and try to follow the rules as much as possible, while other people are rude, don't follow the rules, and then attack me for wanting to help. Please reconsider this. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}