Bandaideditor
August 2015
edit
Hello, I'm Rhododendrites. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Julius Evola without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Bandaideditor, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi Bandaideditor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC) |
November 2015 vandalism
edit Hello, I'm Hmains. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to American Mafia has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 29 March
edit
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Curtis Yarvin page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
June 2016
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 05:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Bandaideditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I believe I was blocked under false premises, I have reviewed Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia which was given as the reason for my ban and my contributions have in no way violated this, I would like to direct administrators to the section "What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not" and point out that focusing on niche topic areas is NOT against the rules.
Decline reason:
Without looking deeply into your edits, I found this on the day you were blocked, which is clearly not productive. Now, I don't know if that's reflective of the rest of your edits. Maybe, maybe not. But it's not a positive contribution to the Wikipedia. Now, you also claim you were banned for focusing on niche topic areas, but I can find absolutely zero evidence to support this. Note my unblock decline is not saying that I think you fundamentally should not ever be unblocked, only that this particular unblock request was insufficiently convincing to me that I should lift your block. You are welcome to make another, and another admin will review it. Yamla (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2016 (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.