Misplaced Pages

User talk:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:12, 14 May 2020 editZarcademan123456 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,053 edits →Please see: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:11, 14 May 2020 edit undoCallanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators73,477 editsm {{checkuserblock-account}}: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100Tag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
== Confused about reversion ==


{| class="messagebox plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"
I realize I didn't log in when I made a change to the Western Wall article that you reverted, but I can't figure out why the change I made was a disimprovement. All I did was make the link to the controversial Haj Amin al-Husseini actually link to him, and put a space between the link and the next word. Happy to engage--my wikipedia account is Mellsworthy.
| style="vertical-align:top;padding-right: 0.5em;" | ]
| '''] indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been ] indefinitely to prevent abuse.'''<br />If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the ], and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- copy the text from the 'view' window, not from here in the 'edit' window! --><code>{{]|''Your reason here'' <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}}</code>. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public. You may instead email the ] at ''{{Nospam|arbcom-en|wikimedia.org}}'' with your username and appeal.<div class="sysop-show"><hr />
'''Administrators:''' ] have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by ] due to the Wikimedia Foundation's ]. Therefore, a Checkuser '''must''' be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission or the prior approval from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the ] (per ]).</div> <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


|}<!-- Template:Checkuserblock-account -->
Thanks,
M. Ellsworth <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== March 2011 ==
] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of ], such as the one you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Please use ] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the ] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --><!-- igloo:vandalism1 --> ] (]) 02:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:It was constructive. thanks just the same. ] (]) 03:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:: {{Talkback|Orthoepy|ts=20:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)}}

== ] ==

Instead of joining an edit war, please join the discussion of ] at ]. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

{| class="messagebox" style="width: 100%; background: ivory;"
| ]
|
| The ] has permitted ] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at ]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the ]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], any expected ], or any ]. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the ] section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at ], with the appropriate sections of ], and with the case decision page.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} -->
|} —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

==Informing others of errors==
Hey there! I saw that you informed another individual that one of their edits was of poor quality (or marked as vandalism). For the sake of clarity, would you mind putting those comments under the '''October 2015''' section? With the chronological comments, it is easier to track vandalism. Thanks! Let me know if you have any questions!
:-] (]) 20:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
::: is an example of what I am referring to above -] (]) 20:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. It was an automated warning generated by the STiki tool. But I can go back and put it into its own section. ] (]) 21:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, that's going to be a lot of work. Why can't the tool do this automatically? ] (]) 21:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

:*Yes, you can totally use any tool to prevent and revert vandalism, and inform users of their offenses. However, it's honestly not very difficult to create a new section, apx 16 characters in length
::-] (]) 23:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi,<br>
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692225944 -->

== ]: Voting now open! ==

{{Ivmbox|Hello, JungerMan Chips Ahoy!. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/38&oldid=750775231 -->

== Ali Khamenei - copyright violations ==

Hi. A user removed several sourced paragraphs in the article about ayatollah Kahemeni because of copyright problems. I rewrote the content in different words in order for an extended confirmed user to restore it. Please, would you mind taking care of it? (thank you very much): ]--] (]) 00:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
:Looks like this was already done by someone else. ] (]) 16:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==

{{Ivmbox|Hello, JungerMan Chips Ahoy!. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/06&oldid=813406902 -->

== prior accounts ==

Have you ever used another account on Misplaced Pages? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)</small>
:Seeing as how their first edit with this account in over two years is to oppose Floq’s RfA, I would think that is exceedingly likely. ] (]) 23:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
::I would like to know why you haven't answered this question? And I am especially interested in how you got interested in the ] /]-articles, (which have less that 10 views per day)? (Though I note that ] was quite active on the talk-page, back in the day) ] (]) 22:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

==Important Notice==
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''

You have shown interest in the ]. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called ] is in effect. Any administrator may impose ] on editors who do not strictly follow ], or the ], when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the ] and the ] decision ]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> ] ] 16:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
==Important Notice==
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called ] is in effect. Any administrator may impose ] on editors who do not strictly follow ], or the ], when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the ] and the ] decision ]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> ] ] 09:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

== Illegal ==

The case for removal of illegal is strong on multiple accounts. If you disagree open a talk page discussion for it. I'm here every day and look forward to workin with you for the next weeks and months ahead. Happy to engage in a 30-day RfC if you so wish any time. -- ]] 02:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
:I am not the one edit warring over this content, you are. You need to open a talk page discussion for it. ] (]) 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for April 5==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (&nbsp;|&nbsp;). Such links are ], since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 15:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

== Important message ==

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''

You have shown interest in ]. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called ] is in effect. Any administrator may impose ] on editors who do not strictly follow ], or the ], when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the ] and the ] decision ]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> —]] – 20:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

{{Ivm|2=This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''

'''Please carefully read this information:'''

A community discussion has authorised the use of ] for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (]).<br>The specific details of these sanctions are described ]{{#ifeq:{{Gs/topics|sanctions sanctions = covid }}||.<br>|&#58;
{{talkquote|}}}}
Broadly, ] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> ] ] 19:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

== Occupy from? ==

Just curious why both you and Zarcademan seem to think that standard English expressions like "x occupied y" somehow means "Occupied from". Where does the "from" enter into it? Is this an artifact of some language other than English? ] (]) 17:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
:You just need to read a little more carefully. The text I revised originally read "When Israel occupied the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967", So I got the idea the person who wrote that meant "occupied from" from the text they entered that read "occupied from". ] (]) 17:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

::Ah, I see. Well, you were correct to alter the original because the "from Syria" bit is not needed.] (]) 17:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

== Gratitude ==

First off, thx for assistance in some regards for example 1R in my talk page...
Secondly, is there a way to make a guideline on Misplaced Pages? All this discussion about “occupation”... if there was a guideline that said only to use that word in relation to governance instead of the physical act, I feel it would go a long way toward cutting out confusion about when and where correct to use the obviously politically loaded word.
Any assistance appreciated thank you ] (]) 04:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:No problem, I am happy to help.
:What is sometimes done is the creation of an "FAQ" section or note on the talk page of the relevant article, for example here - https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Antisemitism - the note about Arabs being semitres. I am personally not a big fan of such guides, or mandatory boilerplates that prescribe particular language to use or not use. ] (]) 13:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok thx for heads up ] (]) 19:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

== Are you a sock? ==

The usual suspects are at it again, so feel free to defend yourself. If you are a sock or if you're not a sock.
] ] <sup>]</sup> 14:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:AN-notice--> ] <sup>]</sup> 05:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

{{Ivm|2=This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''

'''Please carefully read this information:'''

A community discussion has authorised the use of ] for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (]).<br>The specific details of these sanctions are described ]{{#ifeq:{{Gs/topics|sanctions sanctions = covid }}||.<br>|&#58;
{{talkquote|}}}}
Broadly, ] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->

==Warning: disruptive editing==
Your edits to ] — basically only one edit, that you have been battling to push into the article — are extremely tendentious. It's pretty strange to insist via a slow edit war, in defiance of reliable sources and of , that the header "Coronavirus pandemic misinformation" needs an "Alleged" added to it. You have not even tried to edit the section itself, which states quite clearly that The Federalist ''has'' been purveying misinformation, so it's not like your changed header fits the contents. This is disruptive editing. Please stop before you are, at least, topic banned from coronavirus and page blocked from ]. ] &#124; ] 20:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

To add the federalist is an RS, nothing in ] or ] says magazines are all opinion pieces. I have said mall I will now say to you on this matter. Next time I will take it to ANI.] (]) 09:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

===ANI===
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 16:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

== Please see ==

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Jaba%27,_Jerusalem

Huldra reinserted obvious blatantly loaded “segregation” wall...i in the past was in an edit war with this person, IYO what should I say, or should I just revert tomorrow? ] (]) 04:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Got resolved nvm ] (]) 15:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==
]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice-->.] (]) 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

==ANI report closed with no action, but a word of caution==
Hi. I have closed the ANI report with no action, but I still feel I should caution you about skirting the line between legitimate and ] comments (). Please try to do better. Thanks and good luck in amicably resolving the dispute. ] 20:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:I appreciate you closing the ANI with no action. I am puzzled that you found the linked comment tendentious - I think it illustrates quite clearly why that source is an opinion piece, rather than factual reporting. ] (]) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, but the set up you used to advance that point was borderline tendentious, so I am asking you to please be more cognizant with future comments. ] 20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry , I don't follow. That piece is cleary opinion, and that sentence illustrates that fact well. What is tendentious about it? ] (]) 21:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::::The example you used is quite preposterous, but more importantly, the comment itself was unresponsive after multiple requests to answer directly. ] 21:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::You are arguing by assertion, repeatedly . Why was it preposterous? The comment was hardly unresponsive- there were claims that this opinion piece is reliable for facts, I responded that it was not and I demonstrated why it is not, using something from the piece. ] (]) 21:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I am not going to debate this at length with you, JungerMan Chips Ahoy! Obviously, saying in wikivoice that {{tq|since 2019, every person in the world is an amatuer epidemiologist,}} is preposterous. If you cannot understand that, I'm afraid that you will run into further difficulties in the future. ] 22:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Look, you come here with the authority of an administrator to issue a warning, the least you could do is answer my questions. Of course it is preposterous to say in Misplaced Pages's voice that {{tq|since 2019, every person in the world is an amatuer epidemiologist,}} and yet, that is what the source in question says. It says it tongue in cheek, of course, but that's precisely my point - it is not a piece of factual, neutral reporting, it is an opinion piece, in which the writer can take liberty with describing the world- exaggerate for effect etc.. If we can't rely on it to make factual statement about people being epidemiologists, why can we rely on it for its other statements? The most you can do with such an opinion piece , as it relates to the matter at hand, is say that "so and so, writing in the New Yorker, described The Federalist as X". ] (]) 23:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, I've answered your question to my satisfaction. But I'll say this: <s>I submit to you that what you call ''tongue in cheek'' was not clear as such, hence why that was reported by the complainant.</s> And I agree with them that it was problematic. ] 23:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Okay I misread your explanation directly above, sorry about that. My point remains, however, is that you employed that aforementioned ''tongue in cheek'' mention by that piece in a manner which placed it clearly out of context. ] 23:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::I see that you think it's problematic, but despite my repeated questions, you've failed to explain why it is problem to use that argument. If it wasn't clear, I wasn't suggesting we actually use such language in the ] article. Perhaps you need to read ]. ] (]) 23:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::Just because a piece uses some more prosaic language, at times, has no bearing on whether the piece is factually reliable. That determination should be guided by ]/] findings about the publication. As a rhetorical devise, it ''was'' problematic because it extrapolated from that informal phrasing a conclusion that was both out of context and unresponsive. ] 23:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::I disagree with that argument (to me, what you call "informal phrasing" is one of the things that distinguishes factual news reporting from opinion pieces, and it is a clear example that the source in question is an opinion piece, not factual reporting. The dispute is not whether or not The New Yorker is generally reliable, but whether the article in question was news or opinion.). But even if I am wrong and you are right, my disagreeing with you is not tendentious. I may fail to convince you or other editors of my position, but that does not make it unresponsive or problematic, and you coming here as an admin and making such a claim has a chilling effect on debate. You would do well to strike it. ] (]) 23:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::You are, of course, entitled to disagree with me. I'm not questioning you having that basic right. But my evaluation is that it was a borderline tendentious and unresponsive comment stands. Anyway, it was meant to be a gentle caution rather than a do-this-again-and-you'll-be-sanctioned type of warning. I'm just trying to convey to you how you came across to myself, the complainant, and possibly others. Do with that as you will. ] 23:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
OK you want the difference, the source is titled "The Federalist as “Medical Journal” in the Time of the Coronavirus" Not "People as “Medical Journal” in the Time of the Coronavirus", thus it is commenting on the federalist, not everyone else. Thus the line "One consequence of the coronavirus pandemic is that we’ve all become amateur epidemiologists." is a throwaway joke, whilst the whole article is about the Federalists misinformation (] might be worth a read). Its called context, what the article is about.] (]) 09:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:Not really sure what you are trying to say here. the line I quoted from the article is surely talking about people becoming epidemiologists. As explained above, it was written by the article's author tongue in cheek, or if you prefer, as a throwaway joke, and that is what indicates that the article is an opinion piece, not news reporting. ] (]) 13:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::Err no it does not, as it was not published as an opinion piece by as a news piece. You have now had an admin, me a number of other users and now an RFC tell you (in effect) you are wrong and this is an RS. If you carry on you will get a block, drop this now. This is my last word on the subject, what you do next is up to you.] (]) 13:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::There's an RfC on the subject, and I intend to abide by its result, but I will not kowtow to your demands not to continue to argue for my position just because you disagree with it, nor will I be intimidated by your attempts to get me sanctioned at ANI. ] (]) 13:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

== Attributing ==

There is no problem to attribute to nrg360 of course btzelem should be attributed too but take it easy --] (]) 18:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:I think it would be a mistake to give in on this. Sure, the issue of Tilapia in Qanah is trivial , and can easily be sourced to a dozen additional source, but it's the principle of thing. I know where this is going- just look at the comments- the next step is that Maariv and NRG will be declared non-reliable sources. ] (]) 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

== Notification ==

Please see ]. ] (]) 21:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
:I am probably going to start an RFC about this maybe in weekend --] (]) 04:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

== Please see ==

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yakir&oldid=942296263

(Regarding illegality in first paragraph) This is at least insertion without source right? I don’t know how to handle this...if you think action should be taken please do ] (]) 06:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:11, 14 May 2020

 Misplaced Pages's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org with your username and appeal.
Administrators: CheckUsers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Therefore, a Checkuser must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission or the prior approval from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)