Hello, I'm SamX. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Murder of Agnes Wanjiru, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Malayan Emergency. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling another editor "toxic" is a nasty personal attack. Please don’t do this sort of thing again. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm an uninvolved administrator here from your thread at WP:AN. This is a formal warning that you need to stop making controversial edits to the article Murder of Agnes Wanjiru and get consensus from the other editors on the talk page Talk:Murder of Agnes Wanjiru first. If you continue to disrupt the article with controversial edits, I will consider blocking you from the article. I don't think this is a great edit either. Please take a break from editing that article. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeah. I wouldn't have to edit if History Wizard of Cambridge wasn't reverting? He's not getting my consensus on the talk page before he edits (check edit history he just made two edits). It's not like I'm changing the entire article. I'm being completely reasonable. She was a prostitute/sex worker. 109.157.92.138 (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Murder of Agnes Wanjiru) for a period of 1 week for edit warring after final warning.

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:13, 22 June 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I wouldn't have to edit if History Wizard of Cambridge wasn't reverting my sourced edits. He's not getting my consensus on the talk page before he edits (check edit history he just made two edits), so therefore why should I need to get his consensus to undo his reverts? Is he more important or his opinion more valuable than mine?109.157.92.138 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

For one, you are VERY likely evading a block. Two, you're continuing the behavior that caused the block to begin with. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:54, 22 June 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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for hounding Nythar, likely socking (CptJohnMiller / Militaryfactchecker).

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:23, 22 June 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Nythar was mass reverting my edits and seriously griefing pages. A lot of work was put in to them pages. Nythar seems to want to go to war for some reason?109.157.92.138 (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You might directly wish to address the exact reasons for your block, which are disruptive editing, edit warring, 3RR and more. Externalising the issue by blaming other editors, misses the whole point. If your next unblock request does not address the reasons, and if you continue attacking editors, your talk page access may be revoked. Lourdes 11:14, 22 June 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.

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.