2001:4C4C:1ED1:9B00:A174:D435:88A7:5E7B

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).

2001:4C4C:1ED1:9B00:A174:D435:88A7:5E7B (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I had absolutely no idea you weren't supposed to edit archived discussions. A discussion was incorrectly archived, I asked the person who archived it to undo it, and I had no idea how to unarchive it. I thought editing it might automatically move it out of the archive, but instead it just gave me a block.2001:4C4C:1ED1:9B00:A174:D435:88A7:5E7B (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

At the very top, every archive page has a warning saying "Do not edit the contents of this page.". I don't see how you could have missed that. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Yes but I didn't look there because I was immediately scrolling down to the incorrectly archived discussion. I have never used the archive feature before. I am sorry, but I really just want to restore the incorrect archiving and now I know that that has to be done by reposting it.

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).

2001:4C4C:1ED1:9B00:A174:D435:88A7:5E7B (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I had absolutely no idea you weren't supposed to edit archived discussions. A discussion was incorrectly archived, I asked the person who archived it to undo it, and I had no idea how to unarchive it. I thought editing it might automatically move it out of the archive, but instead it just gave me a block. Yes at the top of the page it does say to not edit it, but I didn't look there because I was immediately scrolling down to the incorrectly archived discussion. I have never used the archive feature before. I am sorry, but I really just want to restore the incorrect archiving and now I know that that has to be done by reposting it.2001:4C4C:1ED1:9B00:A174:D435:88A7:5E7B

Decline reason:

No indication you understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines now. For example, what would you do differently if unblocked. For example, you've previously claimed primary sources are preferred, which is totally wrong on Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

The Marshall Islands are OR, not just primary sources

Please read WP:SYNTH. Specifically, the part Production is addressed, but possession and fictional representations are not, neither in the criminal code nor the most recent available Child Rights Protection Act. Possession might be included indirectly as the law makes provisions for victims of viewing such content, but there are no specific regulations to be found counts as OR under SYNTH. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The part on the talk page is the reasoning for the source and correction to be made to the article, so if the part on the talk page violates policies, it's original research reasoning so the correction should not be made.Aaron Liu (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

---