User talk:ElephantElephant2

May 2024[edit]

Thanks for contributing to the article King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster). However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I normally do. I will add the citation. ElephantElephant2 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Hanukkah. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reported. ElephantElephant2 (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, its back. And there's now a cite for the 4th Foot article, too. What's your level of education on Hanukkah? I've studied theology, history, and law pertaining to the holiday and the historical events that it commemorates. ElephantElephant2 (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not making disruptive edits, I was adding content with citations from reputable sources. ElephantElephant2 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2024 (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).

ElephantElephant2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not making disruptive edits, my additions were being deleted with snide comments, not with any evidence to contradict the cited changes. It would be unjust to punish someone adding uncontroversial, well cited edits to an article. ElephantElephant2 (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you see nothing disuptive about your actions, there are no grounds to remove the block. I might also suggest that you read WP:EXPERT. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 14 May 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.

I've placed your statement within the request as intended, it should go where the words "your reason here" are. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Thank you, I understand. Still new to all of this.[reply]

UTRS appeal #88605[edit]

Appellant needs to seriously reconsider their approach. And adjust the unblock request to address the reasons for their block. I see this user a WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, but maybe some light will dawn after my decline. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Deepfriedokra, what you mean. Last night was rough for me, I was only trying to make constructive edits, which were repeatedly being deleted. I should have assumed good intentions on the part of the other editor. ElephantElephant2 (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]