Hello! I noticed your contributions to Liberal Christianity and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; I removed your changes to the introduction at the Mars article because it changed the meaning of a sentence whose sense was already supported by a scholarly citation. I'm not at all sure what you meant to say, or on what basis, so it you have a case to make for your changes, it might be best to do so at Talk:Mars (mythology). Thanks Haploidavey (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Hey man im josh. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Second Vatican Council seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Neo-creationism, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 19:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Treasury of merits and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 184.71.97.170! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 184.71.97.170, and again, welcome to the Wikipedia. It's fine to dive right in, but it takes awhile to become used to all the in and outs. But don't worry! We don't mind helping you learn the ropes as you progress.

So, one of our core principles is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV), which in a nutshell says "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it."

So, in your edit here you, for instance, added the text I've bolded:

Paul the Apostle says that while in his opinion...

So, we already have "Paul the Apostle says...", so we can assume it is his opinion. If it something he didn't believe, that would be unusual. It could be that he's setting up an argument, eg "Paul the Apostle says that while in the opinion of some, with whom he disagrees...", but that's not what he's doing, and it was we'd have to make that more clear.

So, whatever your intent, I think some readers could come away with "well the Wikipedia emphasizes that it's only his personal opinion, so maybe it's something that is clearly false or that few people agree with, then or now, or something. Else why would they emphasize it?"

I have my own personal opinion about Paul and the influence he's had on the world. However, I leave that behind when I write for the Wikipedia. I suspect you do not hold Paul in high esteem, and fine, but that doesn't matter here. We let the reader make up her own mind whether Paul was a wise prophet or an ignorant asshole or whatever in between.

And so on for some (not necessarily all) of the rest your edit. Also you didn't leave an edit summary, which isn't required but would have helped.

So, another core rule is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD). An editor (you) boldly made an edit, and that's fine and is encouraged. However, any editor can decide "I don't know as this edit is an improvement, so let's return to the previous version while (if the editor wants) we'll discuss this and maybe get some more eyes on it and see how to best proceed", which is what I did The burden is then on the editor wanting to make the change (you), so then it would be your responsibility to open a thread on the talk page, and initiate an conversation where you provide arguments and references to support your edit, and others may join in, and if your arguments and references are superior you should win the day (or there might be a compromise hammered out).

Anyway, so here you made an edit, not understanding that the burden was on you to open a talk page thread (and perfectly understandable, now you know, there's no way to know all this stuff when you are new), and also only waiting a couple hours which, a few days would be a better wait period, we get busy and there's no hurry, we want to get this right. And, I don't "like so much" the passage, I'm only vaguely aware of it, and I'm not at all familiar with this article, I'm just acting according to our accepted standards. And it comes off a little peevish, which you want to be careful with that.

There is a source given (directly in the text instead of as a footnote, but still OK), which is 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul says "I wish that all men were as I am [that is, celibate -- ed]. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried... I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." We have this as "everyone is free to marry, it is better to refrain from marriage and remain celibate to better serve God". The point being that Paul is saying that to marry is fine, and meets God's requirements. But "It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves..." indicates that being celibate (as Paul is) is for people who can control themselves, which is why Paul would "wish that all men were as I am" -- that is, unmarried and thus celibate. Which is pretty clearly better than having to get married. So, it seems to be a fair example of Supererogation, I guess.

I had to look all this up, but I guess it's a common interpretation -- that is, the mainstream interpretation. One could try to interpret 1 Corinthians 7 as indicated that it is more Godly, or more pleasing to God, to marry than to remain celibate, or any no worse, but that would require some gymnastics and, more importantly, is not the mainstream interpretation. We tend to lay out out the mainstream interpretation of things, mainly. We're rather boring and pallid that way, but it's for the best, and anyway is how we roll.

However, if you can ref a respected neutral scholar(s) to indicate that 1 Corinthians 7 is not an example of Supererogation, that that'd be different, and we'd want to look at those.

So, these are some of the arguments I would probably bring out on the talk page. Other page watchers would, hopefully, have things to say also, and hopefully a consensus would emerge about what to do. So, by all means, if you're up to it you should open a talk page thread, I think it'd be good practice. And it's entirely possible that be refs and argument you can convince me, or the others. Carry on, and again, welcome, and again, nobody expects you to know all this yet! Herostratus (talk)

You can write a "Holy Bible" or "New Testament" section to explain and justify your understanding of supererogation but I'm not cool placing this weird stuff into the Catholic faith section. Of course Saint Paul is a wise prophet in the Catholic faith. But is he infallible? No.... He's never been the Pope in that faith and the original one was married (St. Peter). So fren, sorry, none of it is my opinion, I was just presenting Catholic teaching on the subject matter since it contradicts St. Paul's opinions and that segment of the article section is supposed to be about Catholicism, not St. Paul's personal opinions. If you had some references to include there I'm not sure I'm seeing any yet cited? The Catholic faith teaches marriage is both a sacrament and a necessity (at-least for most people) which suggests strongly to the contrary of whatever is being said about "celibacy is better", which itself is probably a mistranslation itself since you wrote he said quoted verbatim "celibacy is GOOD"..... I may have my own personal opinions about celibacy derived from a mental health perspective, where much of science suggests it isn't a good thing often and usually isn't better, but this is about Holy Scripture, so I'm not including that right now, and since this is not about the priesthood in particular it doesn't make much sense to include it, neither what you have asked for me to include, and it would also be disrespectful to Eastern Catholicism to prioritize a Eurocentristic Western-only viewpoint much rather instead even if we talked about the priesthood. Eastern Orthodoxy in general teaches something much different quite often as well about all these things you've been speaking on to me so it isn't going to feel fair, neutral, objective, etc. about what the Catholic viewpoint is at all, since it isn't accommodating to what the Church believes currently. It's important to avoid misrepresentation.

Thanks for the heads up bud. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain and discuss your proposed edits on the Theistic evolution Talk page before arbitrarily making them. -- Jmc (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I added the WP:NPOV dispute tag for that, also I suggest you don't go accusing edits of being arbitrary before explaining how that could possibly be a likely scenario btw. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say you are engaged in BRD if you haven't even bothered to start a discussion on Talk:Progressive creationism? Regardless, the other user accidentally reverted my edit when they meant to revert yours. Please stop with the aggressive and tenacious editing. You're welcome to be a member of Wikipedia, but you have to understand that you do not own articles. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that even now after asking me to do WP:BRD with you that you aren't even engaging at all on the talk page. It sounds hypocritical to ask me to do something with you I said I'm doing that you seem unwilling or unable to do with me. There was literally a discussion there like 2 hours within that time period of editing you were around to see that was started by another user about the edits I made you kept repeatedly reverting. The other user is currently proposing there right now to edit things in the direction I proposed favourably. That user JMC was agreeing with a lot of my edits that YOU reverted. And he reverted YOU. Quit making false accusations and trying to obfuscate the truth. That my editing is aggressive is WP:ASPERSIONS (it's unfounded accusations so far you have failed to prove). You came here posting aggressive hate mail on my page and talking about other people from articles that have nothing to do with you that have been having debates with me per WP:BRD yet you complain I didn't do this with you? How about you be the real man and engage in WP:BRD then if it bugs you so much that I like to do this but you're mad I don't with you supposedly? Tenacity is generally considered a good moral trait in modern Western civilization, it has never been seen as bad by any society, my talk page is not the place to cry about me using WP:BRD in ways you don't like, so I'll respectfully and politely ask you to stop leaving unnecessary hateful comments on this page per WP:NPOV. If you keep up your deliberately disruptive editing that is highly nonconstructive if not literal vandalism yet at this point then you may end up on WP:ANI, you've been pushing your POV too hard quite long enough on wikipedia for someone that doesn't seem to think he has WP:OWN. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I wasn't going to respond any further, but I just saw that you responded here and had to clarify a few things. First, Jmc reverted me unintentionally and meant to revert *you*. Secondly, your tenacity isn't the problem, the problem is that you write walls of paragraphs that quickly became extremely annoying to follow. Third, you keep accusing me of having a POV, but literally, I don't. I don't really care about this content dispute, and that's not why I reverted you in the first place. Finally, these comments aren't "hateful", and I have no idea why you think they are. I'm trying to be as polite as possible. Have a good night. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 184.71.97.170! Your additions to Fascism and ideology have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to delete any comments made on your talk page, however, this also is an indication that you have read them. Consequentially, you should obey Chiswick Chap's warnings, which are not "casting aspersions" or "vandalism" as you refer to it, but are the appropriate warnings given your disruptive behavior, which is leading to multiple pages being page protected. You should also obey Diannaa's warnings regarding copyright. A friendly warning: if you do not stop treating Wikipedia like a battleground, your conduct may end up on WP:ANI and you may be blocked. Thank you! Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may end up on WP:ANI and be blocked if you continue this hateful and aggressive accusatory conduct on my talk page while mass reverting several other users constructive edits. What he was doing is WP:ASPERSIONS and violated WP:NPOV because I had already engaged in WP:BRD with him and he knew that but deliberately ignored it while making false accusations in the post on my talk page. By the time I had seen it he had actually refused to engage in WP:BRD AFAIK btw. There is no warnings to obey about Chiswick Chap's demeanor towards me on Lamarckism because there isn't any problem there at all. It's inappropriate because his warnings are irrelevant, they aren't founded in reality that what I was doing is disruptive editing. It's an opinion of a very flawed qualitative character, objectively. Context is needed here, he doesn't supply it, and he doesn't want to supply it, because it would look bad for the circumstances he's trying to create. And you seem to know very little about these situations that don't involve you that you're trying to shove your nose into. Leave me alone. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to be polite and give you a heads-up that your behavior is unacceptable. What you do with that is up to you. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap was warned by other users on the talk page for making inflammatory comments in his edit opposing me in playing a revert game with me that I wasn't going for. That's why he was accused of vandalism. I'm going to politely ask you to leave me alone again right now. This is absolutely unnecessary and extraneous details emphasised by someone who seems to have an editorial agenda not rooted in WP:NPOV being pushed against me. Your behaviour is unacceptable per WP:POV pushing on both your article editing and on this talk page digging up other user conflicts from nothing to do with you but apparently a personal matter related to how someone feels towards me on here, because what you've been doing quite a bit long before me even right now is quite evidently your WP:BATTLE by you yourself coming here to attack me uninvited even while I have asked you to stop. This comment by you seems to me to be disguised as a concern about WP:ANI when we both know what's going on here and many other people should be easily able to see that. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap wasn't warned about anything. Anyway, I have no agenda, or POV; I happened to see your disruptive changes to multiple articles and noticed that you were fighting with other Wikipedia users. Stop with the Wikilawyering. Anyhow, my post here was intended to provide a friendly warning regarding your behavior on Wikipedia; you're not obligated to heed it, but I would suggest you should. I have provided you a warning, so there's nothing more for me to do for now. Anyway, have a good day! -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With no proof that I'm WP:Wikilawyering that is basically almost literally a confession by you that what you're doing is WP:ASPERSIONS. That is indeed quite ironic, funny, and hilarious even though it's hypocritical because most of what you to tend to do all the time, at-least seemingly in your spare time online usually, is WP:Wikilawyering yourself. You're guilty as sin of what you accuse others of doing and now it's going to be well-documented. Cheers bro. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you've been sufficiently warned, "bro". Don't be surprised if you get blocked for trolling. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny because I'm pretty sure you started accusing me of trolling because I started originally accusing you of being a troll a couple times in the edit logs on those various articles you love to stalk me on all over the place reverting me wherever you think you can even when other people even admins disagree with your reverts/edits sometimes. If that's not being spiteful and pedantic I don't know what is. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is the very last thing I'm going to say regarding this: the only person who has been reverted here is you. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well I think that's actually WP:WIKILAWYERING tbh. I'll explain why. We know that this is a cope because of when JMC accused you of trolling. In the edit comment he made it clear, because when he reverted your edit restoring the "creation science" part of progressive creationism he later spoke on the talk page there proposing that the segment I removed should also stay removed. How can you explain this one away if you haven't been caught in the act? 184.71.97.170 (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, against my better judgment, you've drawn me back in with your trolling. I asked Jmc if he meant to revert me or you, and he very clearly said that he meant to revert you. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did suspect that he wouldn't admit it. You'd probably tell him he was casting aspersions. I mean yeah it's not a big deal but there was 10 minutes between your edit and his revert so it's quite bizarre and suspicious to be quite frank with you. I wouldn't take any random internet user at their word on anything, not even if I were you would I want to. He probably meant both of us trolling towards eachother in the edit logs honestly. Your first impression was in that you said he did it to you rather than me at first. That was also my first impression. The timing was long off for a tiny quick edit. I'm not intending to troll you back for trolling me, but I'm pointing towards the fact you seem a bit naive about all this. It is not personal. I wouldn't apologize for his actions either even if I said he had a good point to make about the way articles were written by you. I do agree with you that the language he used was needlessly hostile whether it was towards you or myself considering he's a senior editor that takes pride in his "status", not sure if he was an admin at any point but maybe he was a candidate. Not saying that to excuse you or anything but you weren't the only disruptive editor there and neither was I even if I wasn't doing anything like that deliberately and I'm not sure you exactly understand what is disruptive and what isn't ontologically or if you understand all the ways the rules apply practically even if you didn't violate the letter but the spirit on wikipedia, etc. like they say with wikilawyering. But it was in an inappropriate context for JMC to make the accusation. JMC however was cunning when he did start the edit warring against me if I remember correctly to begin with, because he started with small details then moved to bigger and bigger ones to rv, dispute, etc. even if I was taking from the sources. So I wouldn't take it as a pat on the back from him to you by him. Personally, my opinion is that he was inciting you to anger if he was deflecting blame onto you for antagonizing me. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've seen enough. You're clearly trolling, and NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 10:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so what then you're mad at me trying to be nice to you and your current situation because it makes you feel like you're uncertain about my feelings regarding how you might feel wronged by another person? That's why they call it WP:wikilawyering. You're coming at me angry for my last message about me being kind, fair, and honest to you, in a two-sided way, focusing on a new but closely related subject I mentioned, but you're stuck on past details and acting like we've got some type of beef while I'm trying to have a normal social interaction with you expressing my logic in a wikipedia debate forum. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 1 month for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 07:33, 3 August 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Under the Wikipedia terms and policies I can only be blocked for disruptive editing if it was deliberate, because of the WP:wikilawyering principle I would suppose. Typically, it is almost only ever used as an accusation against vandalism, as it seems to be often specified they usually only do this in cases of obvious deliberation, often called "vandalism". Mine was not deliberately disruptive and I had only purely constructive intentions. I didn't see it as disruptive at the time but I understand how it could be perceived that way by you Mr. Weller even though you weren't highly involved in the editorial process of these articles nor other people engaging in a conflict with me, a few who had started an edit war with me. It was not my intention to do so and I uphold that I was not mostly the main edit warrior in most of this when people were having problems. I believe people reverted me much, much more than I reverted them, and I almost always tried to make unique and insightful edits based on much source material that was often explicitly cited even if not always cited, which shouldn't be the major problem here to look at. I think it should be obvious based on how eager and willing I was to engage in WP:BRD with other people even though they were not always as eager as me. The administrator Mr. Souza was willing to engage with me briefly and listen to me politely and considerately at the theistic evolution talk page and followed some of my insight in his own way, and so was a nice lady eager to help me that was very helpful and fair towards me on the Lamarckism talk page explaining the ropes of it interested to see what I have to say to her. I would make a few talk page sections to discuss things with people who said they wanted to talk on several other talk pages but I didn't get much feedback from others, not about much of it at all but I tried to say many things making many different interesting and unique suggestions others liked to know more about. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are in error. Disruptive editing need not be malicious or intentional to be disruptive. As WP:DE states, "Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia." Vandalism is a subset of disruptive editing, but disruptive editing need not be vandalism. I think we need to see some more talk page participation before removing the block early. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2022 (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 for one month from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 09:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

(blatant personal attack removed)

Decline reason:

I agree with 331dot below, Wikipedia is clearly not the place for you. I am revoking talk page access to prevent you making any further personal attacks. Yamla (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2022 (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.

Since your original block was altered, I won't review this, but it's clear editing in a collaborative project is not for you. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 184.71.97.170. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Treasury of merits, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]