User talk:Historicallibrarian

January 2025

Hello, I'm Ixocactus. I noticed that you recently removed content from Tucker Carlson without adequately 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; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your 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. Ixocactus (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind message and thats fine. Tucker Carlson is by definition a controversial subject and probably best left alone after all! LOL Historicallibrarian (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

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

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not aware of any such edits other than some removed tags where a reason was provided. I will no longer edit at all if that helps?

Decline reason:

If you no longer intend to edit, there's no reason to lift the block. Yamla (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2025 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not aware of any such edits other than some removed tags where a reason was provided. I will no longer edit at all if that helps?

Decline reason:

If no longer want to edit then the block will not affect you. All the block does is prevent you from editing. Cabayi (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2025 (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.

You are not permitted to remove or edit declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Please do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its all very Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies on here, so I won't bother with this account anymore and will leave you to your collective outrage.