User talk:CMD007

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Canterbury Tail talk 18:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Canterbury Tail Thank you for the heads up Mr. Canterbury, but I’ve added sources to the article and I don’t believe they are insufficient evidence of its origins. Not sure why people (anonymously, although I suspect a certain user]] are bent on taking the date out. CMD007 (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coronations in the Americas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles V.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: Thank you for the information, but those edits were not disruptive. I was using the same guidelines that were used to delete other charts from articles. They were reverted, like I was trying to revert the same deletions on Maximilian I of Mexico. This demonstrates there is no consistency and those “guidelines” are either non-existent or bent for/by certain users. If you’d like to know more, there is a discussion on the Talk Page. CMD007 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2023 (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).

CMD007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was reverting vandalism/edits which deleted multiple sources. The user:Obsidian Soul has not been blocked despite the fact that he began reverting my edits before I began reverting his and he is guilty of deleting FIVE original sources at a time. He also did not stop reverting once he asked for the ANI. I actually went for help first but chose the wrong page/3RR. I have been willing to talk through this and we need others to help work this out. The sources speak for themselves, yet they are all deleted. He has also used very inappropriate language everywhere, yet I’m blocked because of a situation that happened half a year ago according to the blocker.

Decline reason:

Please see

WP:GAB to understand how to write an appropriate unblock request. You should only be talking about your edit-warring; the actions of Obsidian Soul are not relevant here. Yamla (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2023 (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).

CMD007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was reverting vandalism by a user who was deleting multiple sources at a time from many articles. All of the sources are deleted while they should be reinstated. That plus the fact that I was using the talk page to sort out and discuss with the vandalizing party makes this block unfair. CMD007 (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please understand. You are seriously jeopardizing your ability to edit this page. Repeating unblock requests that have been denied is disruptive. You need to understand that you were not reverting vandalism. Reasonable people may differ on their perception of the content differences, but we all must adhere to Wikipedia's policies and conventions to remain in good standing. You will not be unblocked until you realize this and can convince an administrator that you are able to edit within Wikipedia's framework. Tiderolls 13:10, 1 August 2023 (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.

I only repeated the unblock request because this was the information I received: “write an appropriate unblock request. You should only be talking about your edit-warring”. That doesn’t say to me that I cannot request again. Also, you should look into certain IP addresses leaving stupid childish messages and Nazi flags on my talk page. CMD007 (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right after your previous block expired you proceeded to make reverts to your preferred version of at least the following articles (if not more): Manila galleon, Mestizo, Mezcal, Polvorón, Bread in Spain, Creole peoples, and History of Spanish slavery in the Philippines, continuing the same edit warring that got you blocked to begin with. - Aoidh (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Courcelles (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After review, I do not think you are inclined to edit collaboratively on this project, and therefore, it is better if this block simply does not expire. Your history of edit warring warnings alone (most of which you have blanked) indicates a significant problem. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2023 (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).

CMD007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have well over two years of contributions and have inserted more sources than anyone in the related issues discussed at ANI. There is no real justification for such a harsh action against my account. Per the Wikipedia:Blocking policy, it is not supposed to be used as punishment, only to prevent disruptions. I fully understand why definite bans of periods of days are needed.

Editing articles so that they can reflect historical records should not be considered “disruptive”, but I do understand how my prior acts of reverting can be seen as (and many times misinterpreted as) “edit warring”. I also understand that using talk pages is in everyone’s interest, and getting as many users involved in the discussion as possible. I will do so in the future and try to learn more tools to go about fixing these issues. I have already been utilizing scholarly sources, Talk Pages and had requested intermediaries at least 3 times. I was willing to collaborate. Looking back on my edits should be enough to show that I AM trying to help build a sourced encyclopedia, as opposed to what one commenter implies on ANI (who blocked me). I originally only had a couple days ban. As another user stated at ANI, “Usually for indefs though, they're only given to new users because they haven't been contributing at all.”

It has been over 72 hours now. I am asking that this block be adjusted from such a harsh block on a member of well over two years with a history of many helpful, clarifying edits. I can and have worked together with other editors as seen by my inclusion of ALL relevant sources/references on the Mezcal article. As another user put it on the ANI, “Personally I hope this can be resolved with both editors coming back and being constructive.” Please reverse this indefinite ban. CMD007 (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are

banned, there is a difference. "Indefinite" does not mean "forever", it means "until the appellant can convince an administrator there will be no more disruption". Shorter blocks and warnings have been ineffective in preventing the disruption caused by your edits, so one without a specific end date is needed. It is not a punishment, but a way to prevent your disruption. I see nothing in this request to convince me that your disruption will not resume. You've had chances to use talk pages to resolve disputes but haven't done so and comments like this don't help. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2023 (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.

@331dot: What’s the difference, if you cannot be convinced? I have already guaranteed that I will not go about editing in the same manner, and that I will use talk pages to sort these issues out. What more can convince you? As it is I think I handled the second part well, since I did not continue anything after he went crazy. (Do you understand that reply to him? He wasn’t even trying to understand my message to him and went off in his own direction, ignoring what I wrote; That was an honest question to him. Both of the replies I received on that talk page example you linked to do not make any sense and don’t address the issue). This entire issue arose from the other user deleting whole and multiple sources and blanking out entire pages BECAUSE HE DIDN’T LIKE THEM. I just wanted to keep the sources in place. He went haywire, yet he is not on indefinite block. How is that? CMD007 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other users have no bearing on what gets typed on your keyboard. Either you address the things you have done, or you likely won't be unblocked. --Jayron32 16:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For any other reviewing admins, I am copy-pasting this list of diffs made by Obsidian Soul clearly demonstrating a pattern of disruptive POV pushing by CMD007 from User talk:Obsidian Soul:

EvergreenFir (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: @M.Bitton: @DarmaniLink: @Aoidh: @StarTrekker: @ActivelyDisinterested: @Ingenuity: @YesI'mOnFire: @Courcelles: @EvergreenFir: @Jayron32: @Cullen328: @Jayen466:

The fact that everyone is coddling the big BABY Obsidian Soul says to me that the PERSON WHO SCREAMS THE LOUDEST GETS WHAT THEY WANT. Well, guess what? I ONLY WANT SOURCED MATERIAL IN THE EDITS. Everything I’ve ever added or deleted can be VERIFIED or proven UNRELATED. There are sources for the edits in my later life as an editor. Perhaps it was a learning curve for me as an editor to add reliable sources and use Talk Pages (which hardly anyone shows up to except to taunt you). SO SHOOT ME. NO ONE HAS GIVEN ME A CLASS ON EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA. I’m learning HOW TO EDIT MYSELF. I’ve used TRIAL AND ERROR. WHY THE HELL HAVE THIS SITE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC THEN? ONLY TO BLOCK INDEFINITELY WHEN THE WATERS BEGIN TO RIPPLE AND GET ROUGH. THE FIRST TIME I GOT OUT OF UNBLOCK, I didn’t immediately start “edit warring”. I CITED SOURCES AND ADDED IN THE MATERIAL. Obsidian Soul went bat shit crazy and I was the scape goat. He starts crying (and is STILL crying) and then I go from THREE DAYS TO INDEFINITE- PLUS I CAN SAY NOTHING TO REVERSE IT. You all want some magic words when I already explained myself and offered complete cooperation. I don’t have any magic words and I’ve already acknowledged my past mistakes. HAS HE??? He also has added things without sources!!!!!!!!

Everyone saying that “he has the knowledge/“expertise” in this field is mislead. He only has the knowledge of what HE WANTS THE ARTICLES TO SAY. Which mostly isn’t the truth, as can be seen by his cherry picked list of contentions. He doesn’t even know that Mexico City, as the capital of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, ruled the Spanish East Indies (yes, the modern Philippines was ONE of its territories) for the FIRST 250 years.^[1][2] THAT is one of the reasons for Mexican independence —it was a drag on its purse strings!!! They let Madrid TAKE CARE OF IT. This paper from a Filipino professor at Santo Tomas LITERALLY SAYS IT WAS ADMINISTERED [1], which is one of the words he is crying about me using!!!!! How can he not recognize this ACTUAL HISTORY???? And act like it didn’t happen??? THAT MIGHT BE THE REAL REVERSE RACISM —IGNORING THE HISTORY OF THE SPANISH AND NOVOHISPANIC PEOPLE.

Obsidian has had over a decade of experience and this is how he acts??? AND THEN HE’S AWARDED FOR IT. This is how he treats someone who has ADDED MANY sources?? WE HAVE NOT ALL BEEN GLUED TO THE WIKIPEDIA SITE FOR 20 years. We are NEW EDITORS and CONTRIBUTING EDITORS AND WE MAKE MISTAKES. WE AREN’T PART OF YOUR GOOD OL BOYS CLUB (which he seems to be a part of only because of “tenure” nothing else to be honest). ALL ANYONE SEES IS THE 14 YEARS BY HIS NAME AND AUTOMATICALLY GOES TO HIS GOOFY AIDE. HOW ABOUT LOOKING INTO THE EDITS????? Especially the more recent edits HE DOESN’T SHOW IN HIS CHERRY PICKED PRESENTATION.

Cullen328 even offers unwavering “back up” with no knowledge of the material??? GIVE ME A BREAK. CAN’T YOU JUST READ THE SOURCES??? Do the links not work???? What can possibly be said to negate the addition of information when there is a SOURCE???? Multiple sources???

OBSIDIAN SEEMS TO NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND A THING AS SIMPLE AS CHOOSING A BETTER IMAGE FOR A SECTION LABELED “CONQUEST” (16th century) on Talk:Philippines–Spain relations. He cries and goes off into a tangent about unrelated photos/info. He wants a cheesy, heart-warming and romantic 19th century painting of women that represent the countries in mention. Why?? Because it makes him feel good and warm inside. NO ONE SHOULD QUESTION IT. THESE ARE HIS ARTICLES. Doesn’t matter that it’s about the conquest in the 16th century!!!!! HE WANTS IT AND IT STAYS. As for the idiotic IP address who also replied -THEY DIDN’T EVEN MAKE A SINGLE GRAIN OF SENSE. In fact, they were confused. Anyone who can make sense of that entire exchange - explain it to me. But STUDY it first. I don’t care what you say if you didn’t read it carefully. And why doesn’t anyone think that IP was Obsidian when people easily tossed my username around when another IP troll went around the same day reverting edits. WHAT IS WITH ALL OF THESE DOUBLE STANDARDS???

Many GOOD EDITS have just been plain reverted. I made a PERFECT edit using ALL THE SOURCES about the THEORIES of the origins of Mezcal. It was reverted because I mistakenly put it in the Intro instead of being put in the body. HOW ABOUT JUST MOVING IT THERE IN GOOD FAITH??? He’s crying about sources and when I give him 10 SOURCES HE JUST CRIES BECAUSE HE DOESN’T LIKE WHAT THEY SAY BECAUSE HE IS A LITTLE BITCH. If he can call me names and a racist, I can also toss around insults!!!!!

He NEEDS the Filipinos to be mentioned as THE CREATORS⚡️of mezcal. He’s frothing at the mouth about it!! Even though there are LITERALLY ENDLESS SOURCES FOR SPANISH AND INDIGENOUS ORIGINS of a drink that was… created in their own country of Mexico. No way… Spaniards having distillation methods???? FALSE!! Didn’t you know Filipinos HAVE/MAKE EVERYTHING?? Even “””

Was the philipines NOT part of the Spanish East Indies???? He cries about wanting everyone to recognize it being part of (or under, I should say) the Spanish Empire, yet he doesn’t want to call them EXACTLY WHAT THE SPANISH CALLED THEM?? He wants the words “Filipino” and “the Philippines” to be EVERYWHERE with a big spotlight. “Oh, you have menudo, we have some tooo” WELL ITS NOT MENUDO. The edit he wants back in literally says the DIFFERENCE between them, making them NOT THE SAME DISH.

He pretends that he is somehow on a holy quest against “racism”. That is his way of playing the worlds smallest violin. WHAT ABOUT HIM DELETING THE MARIANAS, THE CAROLINAS, AND GUAM????? THEY DON’T MATTER TO HIM. HE COULDN’T CARE LESS. THEY’RE BENEATH HIM, CHAMORROS DON’T MAKE SPANISH FOOD, ONLY PINOYS DO!!!! HE NEEDS THE PHILIPPINES TO BE FRONT AND CENTER, or he will CRY!!!!! Wahhhhhh!!!!

He seems to be upset that Filipinos WERE HISTORICALLY AND VERIFIABLY ENSLAVED. He literally wrote in one of his edits that (paraphrasing) “Filipinos also couldn’t be enslaved and they were protected as citizens of Spain” TALK ABOUT LOLLLLLL. I had INCLUDED HISTORICAL SOURCES THAT SAID THE OPPOSITE. There are books written that scream he is wrong. It was WELL over 120 years after the conquest of Manila before the Spanish Crown even considered not enslaving Filipinos AND TAKING THEM AS SLAVES TO MEXICO. (SEE SOURCES BELOW). After 1700, THEY STILL DID IT. YET HE WANTS WIKIPEDIA TO SAY FILIPINOS WERE AS FANTASTICALLY FREE AS THE SPANISH AND NOVOHISPANOS, just, you know, not as “in charge”. “It was the Filipinos that came to trade with Mexico, not the other way around!! They even built the ships!!! Didn’t you know Filipinos were sailors????? (They never made it across on their own before but NEVERMIND THAT). They sailed around trading with the Americas in charge of their own ships and destiny!!!! Doesn’t matter which article, pick one and add their mention!!! Hurry!!!! Pick any food!!! They have it too!!! It’s not really the same but MENTION IT ANYWAY!! (Link everything to the Philippines - After all, this is the English wiki and Filipinos speak English!!!!! Make it their personal Encyclopedia!!!!) Except

He states “While some of us (Filipinos) were enslaved, same as with Native Americans, and we were always second-class citizens in the Spanish Empire…”. Again, He is not correct. The Native Americans could NOT BE ENSLAVED LEGALLY LIKE FILIPINOS. (See sources below). It was against the laws put forth by Queen Isabella I and later Charles V. HE TRIES DESPERATELY NOT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FILIPINOS HAD BEEN SINGLED OUT IN HISTORY ALONG WITH AFRICANS. But Filipinos and other Asians WERE singled out, along with Africans, to be used as slaves for over a century. IT’S JUST HISTORY. He doesn’t like it, but again, it’s NOT MY OPINION.[2]”From the late 1560s through the early 1700s, individual traders brought slaves from the Philippines to Mexico aboard the ships of the Manila Galleon.” This [3] explains that even though the Spaniards prohibited slavery in the New World, it didn’t in the Philippines. More sources for Filipino slavery - [4], [5], [6], A history of the Manila-Acapulco slave trade (1565-1815), Luengo, Jose Maria S. 1996, [7], [8] - A slave building called “Caserio de Filipinas” in Montevideo, a warehouse for slaves in 18th century, [9], etc, etc.

He uses little phrases like “same as the Native Americans” to change the narrative and make it seem like I don’t know what I’m talking about. Native Americans WERE NOT legally able to legally be slaves since the early 1500’s, so no, not the “same as”. Sources saying native Americans could NOT be enslaved - [10], [11], [12]. Also, There was a decree from Pope Paul III in 1537 to NOT enslave Native Americans [13], which the Catholic Spanish monarchs abided by. There was a solid difference for Spaniards between the Natives of the Americas, whose statues adorned the Royal Palace of Madrid —and Filipinos, whose statues did not. (Not to mention, the Aztec emperors descendants intermarried with European nobility/royalty, while no native Filipinos ever did and definitely never IN Europe.) This is all JUST HISTORICAL FACT, not my rules and not my opinions!!!! Try to understand Obsidian. Yet he’ll go in and twist words and cry more, just WATCH. (He also wrote, “And one of those rights is protection from slavery. Filipino immigrants and ALL Asian slaves in Mexico (New Spain) were BOTH called "chinos". WHICH IS IT??? According to you, were Filipinos PROTECTED from slavery OR NOT???? Do you have SOURCES saying they were protected???? YOU’VE NEVER USED THEM. It’s also the COMPLETE opposite of all the sources I’ve just given here.)

Another instance of ridiculousness: The word Mestizo IN EVERY SOURCE says that it is a person of European (Spanish) and Indigenous American ancestry. IT NEVER DEFINES THEM AS FILIPINO OR AUSTRONESIAN, or ANYTHING ELSE etc. If Filipinos, who are 98% Austronesian, Chinese, and have small populations of various other things, are included in the Mestizo article, then why aren’t Mestizos included in White People or EUROPEAN people articles??? Why aren’t Mulatos included in White People?? They have white ancestry too…? Because they are a DIFFERENT group by definition. THERE IS ALREADY AN ENTIRE ARTICLE DEDICATED TO Filipino Mestizos AND WHAT IT MEANS IN THEIR COUNTRY. HINT: ITS NOT THE SAME MEANING. Every other group mentioned in the article mestizo IS THE SAME MIX OF EUROPEAN/AMERINDIAN, they are going to be the only odd, unrelated people out. Just because he wants inclusion into a group he’s not part of. He needs it!!! But not included as the Spanish East Indies, nooooooo. ONLY AS…. Wait for it……. The Philippines 🙌🏼. Who cares about the others that are the same as the Filipino definition, his country should be mentioned when he wants a mention.

He is amazed that I took Filipinos out of the article Hispanic and Latino Americans??? PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PART OF THAT GROUP AND CERTAINLY NOT ACCORDING TO THE US CENSUS. He laughs that Filipinos were barred from marrying Hispanics??? HOW ABOUT LOOKING UP THE ACTUAL OLD LAWS OF CALIFORNIA instead of “LOL’ing”. Filipinos WERE NOT WHITE. MEXICANS/HISPANICS WERE WHITE ^[3][4] (states “which 445 were between persons of white (Mexicans are considered white)” and Filipinos were barred from marrying whites.^[5] You can find any of this information by looking up VERIFIED racial prerequisite cases and legal cases/historical sources. THIS ISN’T MY OPINION. HE STILL HATES IT THOUGH BECAUSE ITS NOT WHAT HE WANTS IT TO SAY. IT SHOULD BE ACCORDING TO HIS POV AND HIS FEELINGS!!!!

As for Filipinos being “related” people’s—The majority of Filipinos do not have ancestral Spanish last names or blood and they were given fake names for taxes (Claveria Act of 1849). Stanford University has stated that around 3% of the Philippine population had minimal degrees of Spanish ancestry. Most do NOT. Also, the PNAS article on the Philippines states (SI Appendix, Table s7Z) “In contrast to Spanish settled regions (ie. Mexico, Latin Am.), Philippines remained largely unaffected by admixture with Europeans” https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2026132118 HOW CAN YOU CALL THEM A RELATED GROUP???

SORRY BUDDY, truth is truth… and history, MOST of the time, CAN BE VERIFIED. Wikipedia SHOULD NOT BE WRITTEN WITH PERSONAL POINTS OF VIEW BUT SOURCED INFORMATION.

I do admit, I agree with ONE thing the little cry baby says: “Probably explains a good deal of the missing editors over the years.” WIKIPEDIA NEEDS TO GET IT TOGETHER. PROTECT SOURCED CONTRIBUTIONS AND ADD SOURCES WHERE THEY ARE MISSING. And STOP ADMIN FROM OVER REACH AND POWER TRIPS!!!

SOME ADMIN ONLY WANT TO PLAY gOD. (not all, because thank GOD for the good/fair ones. They are far and few in between). There is so much WRONG WITH MANY ADMIN INSERTING THEIR POV INTO THIS ISSUE (many listed above) and ALSO REVERSING GOOD EDITS ON MANY ARTICLES. You don’t have to go very far and study what happened with the Maximilian I of Mexico/Ancestry chart fiasco. BIASED BIASED BIASED. I HAVE POWER, I MUST BE IN POWER. You go right - OVERRULED. You go left - OVERRULED. You can’t go up, you can’t go down - OVERRULED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “THIS ARTICLE MUST BE THIS WAY BECAUSE I SAY, BUT THAT ARTICLE CANT BE THE SAME WAY BECAUSE I SAY. THERE IS NO POLICY, ITS WHAT ME AND MY GANG SAY AT THIS MOMENT. A CHART FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT THAT ONE.” And you think my recent edits are disruptive???? DOES ANYONE HEAR ANYTHING?????? CMD007 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC) CMD007 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to that rant filled with personal attacks, your talk page access has been revoked. Read

WP:UTRS for your unblock options. Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]