MichaGuy
September 2020
edit
Hello, I'm Muboshgu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Gretchen Whitmer have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I WILL REPUBLISH. WHY ARE YOU CENSORING FREE AND ACCURATE SPEECH AND ACTING AS A EDITOR / PROPAGANDANDIST. STOP. MichaGuy (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gretchen Whitmer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Also, please be aware of Wikipedia:No legal threats. I strongly recommend you remove your last two sentences above (as quickly as possible). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
MichaGuy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am new to the community. I made two or three edits - with citations - and each one was deleted entirely - and almost immediately. this suggested to me harassing and abusive behavior and political bias, leaving me feel powerless and not part of a community. I will not make legal threats again. I hope that I - and my edits - are treated fairly MichaGuy (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The "legal threat" issue aside, edits like Special:Diff/976769389, Special:Diff/976842073 and this unblock request (not addressing the actual problem, using Wikipedia as a battleground for publishing biased content) indicate a current fundamental unsuitability for editing Wikipedia. If this ever changes, see our standard offer and the guide for appealing blocks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2020 (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.
MichaGuy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hold on. I was told specifically what the issue was - "legal threats" - and given specific direction of what to do - remove offending language and commit to not doing it again - which I readily did - and did so sincerely. Now you are not only changing the issue, you are offering no recourse. This goes against Wikipedia's own terms of use and other guidelines. It is not transparent. It is not free. And it is not open. This calls into question the credibility of the site and the supposed editors who appear to be exercising clear political bias in controlling content. Please unblock me immediately. I made (and screen shot) edits on liberal elected official's web sites. There were citations to every entry. This blocking suggests that the basis cited by ToBeFree reflects this person's own political bias, which is a violation of the terms and conditions of this site and ToBeFree's obligations as an editor thereunder. Please unblock me. Please note that, due to my blocked status, I am unable to post this to ToBeFree's talk page. MichaGuy (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your block did indeed change. Now you have to deal with using wikipedia as a political battleground, too. WP:GAB explains how to craft an acceptable unblock request. You'll want to take a substantially different approach than the one shown here. Yamla (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2020 (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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yamla - thank you kindly for your comment and productive guidance. I'll consider, review some "stuff" and will follow-up.
Blocked for making legal threats
edit
Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- To get unblocked, you need to remove the legal threat from your talk page and promise not to repeat it. The issue you raised at ANI seems to be a content dispute. Your edits seem to be removing sourced information from articles without explanation. These issues are best discussed at the talk pages of the articles in question. Lastly, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which the software converts to a signature. Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hold on. I was told specifically what the issue was - "legal threats" - and given specific direction of what to do - remove offending language and commit to not doing it again - which I readily did - and did so sincerely. Now you are not only changing the issue, you are offering no recourse. This goes against Wikipedia's own terms of use and other guidelines. It is not transparent. It is not free. And it is not open. This calls into question the credibility of the site and the supposed editors who appear to be exercising clear political bias in controlling content. Please unblock me immediately. MichaGuy (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- MichaGuy, it might help you to read Wikipedia:Consensus because you are using the word in an incorrect way. On Wikipedia, no editor has the final say in an article or edit. If you want to edit on a collaborative project like Wikipedia, you have to accept that no editor owns their edits or an article and every edit can be challenged or reverted.
- Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle would also be helpful to read. If your edit is challenged or reverted, the correct response is to go to the article talk page to discuss the difference of opinion among editors, not to make threats. These discussions happen every day here and it doesn't matter what your experience is or your political point of view. This is how editors on Wikipedia, who have a wide variety of political perspectives, come to a consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 17:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)