User talk:Goldenchalicejustice

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Slon02 (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I tried to discuss my edit with the person who was deleting it for suggestions and they did not respond. I have provided a source (a petition published online, which they say is not good evidence. I will find evidence published in a news source, of which there is plenty). I have presented a view that represents hundreds of thousands of people about this article called Tinkebell. Only one side of the case is being presented, that Tinkebell is an artist trying to bring attention to animal rights. Many people don't believe this at all. They believe she is (Redacted) using animal rights as an excuse to further her self-interest for fame. We don't, as a society, endorse raping our own children as a means to bring attention to the problem of child-sex-tourism in Thailand. So saying she is an artist who is trying to help animal rights by killing animals, is the same logic. I don't see how that statement is supported by a logical factual source either. It is just an opinion. Therefore, I believe I was blocked without cause. If he doesn't like my source, I will find others.Goldenchalicejustice (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You repeatedly inserted a possibly defamatory statement without a legitimate source (and no, a petition that anyone can create and sign is useless). You were told this at the help desk. You also attempted to evade scrutiny by editing while logged out. The editing cycle is "be bold, revert, discuss", not "be bold, revert, keep inserting the same material over and over again and expect the result to be different." Until you show an understanding of why you were blocked, including an understanding of our policy on biographies of living persons and reliable sources, I do not believe an unblock would be beneficial. Kinu ^t/_c 06:39, 10 November 2012 (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.