GA Reviews

edit

Hi. We have formal criteria for Good Article reviews and it would appear you have not adhered to them in your now-deleted reviews. You are welcome to join WikiProjects and assess articles for B-class and below. GAs, however, are a community process. Doing a poor job not only confuses the reviewer, it requires community effort to clean-up your mess. The rating of "good article" only has meaning when applied correctly. To that end, doing GA reviews is probably not the best focus for you right now. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

October 2017

edit
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply