I’m not vandalizingEdit

I’m not vandalizing I’m trying to talk about my opinions Michaeltcm14 (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to post your opinions, it is an encyclopedia. Your edits were vandalism. Continuing to vandalize, especially given that you were warned for doing so as an IP before you started editing via this account, will lead to a block. I suggest you edit constructively if your goal is actually to contribute to this encyclopedia. Thanks. --Kinu t/c 19:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
On second thought, I just noticed this and this, so I am blocking this account per WP:NOTHERE. --Kinu t/c 19:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I was talking about my opinions on a talk page


November 2018Edit

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Kinu t/c 19:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

My blockEdit

Why am I blocked I haven’t done anything wrong. Plz unblock Michaeltcm14 (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Michaeltcm14 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

It was a mistake I thought it was a discussion Michaeltcm14 (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I get the sense that you are not actually a biologist, so the NOTHERE block is correct as your posts don't suggest you are here to constructively contribute. You will need to indicate what constructive contributions you want to make if unblocked and why we should trust that you will not just fool around again. As you have not done that, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I am never said that I was a biologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeltcm14 (talkcontribs)

You claimed here and here that you are an "award winning biologist". In any event, you may request unblock if you go by my statement above. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m not Michael Mooney 331 dot I never claimed that I was an award winning biologist I am not Michael mooney. I have a feeling that you didn’t even read my request.

I’m not Michael MooneyEdit

I’m not Michael Mooney Michaeltcm14 (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If that's true, then you should make another unblock request and tell another administrator that. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Michaeltcm14 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I am not Michael Mooney and I thought that it was a talk page Michaeltcm14 (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I think you would need to explain what you want to do if unblocked other than making nonsensical claims that bird are not animals. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll just add that looking over your contributions again, including your logged out ones, they are indistinguishable from trolling. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Declined requests cannot be removed while blocked; I have restored it. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


Sorry i didn’t realize. I’m sorry about deleting the other one I didn’t realize now can you please unblock me. Michaeltcm14 (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

For fairness, someone else will review your request, since I have already reviewed one of your requests. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


Well thank you for listening to me. Thank you for being fair and thank you for making Wikipedia a better place.

 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Michaeltcm14 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I regret what I have done I was mislead by false information and I think that you should take my reason into account and unblock my i.p and my account please. If I am unblocked I would like to try and help the community instead of spreading my beliefs. Thank you for reviewing have a good day

Decline reason:

Below, you say, "The whole birds are not animals thing I was mislead with false information". You clearly lack sufficient competence to edit Wikipedia and I'm afraid we'll have to leave you blocked to prevent you further harming Wikipedia, as you are unable to determine whether something is obviously false. Yamla (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The questions have not changed, please describe what constructive contributions you want to make, such as what articles or topic areas you want to edit. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


I want to help the community in parts that I know are incorrect it’s not that I have lots of information to share it’s that I have changed my ways and I want to be unblocked because being blocked is such a hassle especially when I have given you reason to unblock me.

What parts are incorrect? 331dot (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


The whole birds are not animals thing I was mislead with false information.


 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Michaeltcm14 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I have learnt from my mistakes that were almost a year ago and I now understand the difference between facts and false statementsMichaeltcm14 (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Michaeltcm14 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

My reasoning is on this page

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. only (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)