User talk:EnochBethany
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Syrian Civil War / 'Syrian 21st century war'
Hi, please see my new posting on
January 2016
- The same goes for Talk:Frank Marshall Davis. Just stop. Jonathunder (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised
Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Blocked
You were given warnings directly above. You chose to remove the warnings and add the information on your talk page that you were warned about. As a result, you are blocked.
Any administrator is welcome to unblock you (without consulting me) provided that you state that you understand the message Gamaliel placed just above this and that you agree not to make such edits again. Jonathunder (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
EnochBethany (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
No defamation occurred. And I did no editing to the article after the warning. The alleged grounds are what I put on my talk page, which constituted no disruption to Wikipedia whatsoever. Cleaning the offensive & unjust bloiler plate off my talk page was no crime & no disruption. Adding this statement ON MY OWN TALK PAGE without reference to any person or article was no violation of any known Wikipedia rule: "Interesting How Persons Get So Heated Over Their Political Heroes Adding the word "possibly" in front of a claim of parentage, when there is no actual evidence of who the father is, is not adding poorly sourced material." I did not receive any warning about posting on my own talk page, & the out of context statement above pertains to no particular person or article. Nor did a warner identify himself as an administrator. The statement is false that "You chose to . . . add the information on your talk page that you were warned about." I did not add the information about which I was warned. I said nothing in my statement about any person whatsoever; I just posted a principle. The statement on my own talk page does not disrupt Wikipedia. Is any administrator interested in fairness & justice?
Decline reason:
I have examined your recent contributions and have considered the warnings you were given and your reaction to them, and this unblock request does not come close to addressing the problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
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.
(EnochBethany (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC))
My appeal is based on justice, as posted above. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC))
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, EnochBethany. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)