User talk:Goofdawg
Welcome[edit]
Hello Goofdawg and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Biology and sexual orientation, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
June 2020[edit]
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Paul Scholes, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
July 2020[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help!) 10:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)unblocking[edit]
Goofdawg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was mainly trying to edit the Paul Scholes article positively and for some reason this was misinterpreted as vandalism. All my edits were reverted for the only reasoning being sheer arrogance. The user User:PeeJay2K3 repeatedly vandalised my work and the only reason I have been blocked and not the user is because of his status and that the user has edited more articles which is clearly discrimination. Goofdawg (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your appeal needs to address your problems. Complaining about other users is no substitute. Cabayi (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2020 (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.
- If you think you've been blocked because of the changes you tried to make to the Paul Scholes article and not any of the disruptive shit you've been pulling on the userpages of both myself and User:Serial Number 54129, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself in the mirror. You're clearly not here to improve the encyclopaedia. If you were, you would have gone about this in an altogether more adult manner. Please don't darken my doorstep again until you've matured significantly. – PeeJay 11:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
unblocking[edit]
Goofdawg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was mainly trying to edit the Paul Scholes article positively and for some reason this was misinterpreted as vandalism. All my edits were reverted for the only reasoning being sheer arrogance. The user User:PeeJay2K3 repeatedly vandalised my work and the only reason I have been blocked and not the user is because of his status and that the user has edited more articles which is clearly discrimination. I would strongly urge that User:PeeJay2K3 gets banned as this person is currently unemployed and would very much benefit from spending less time vandalising sheer hard work some people put into their articles.Goofdawg (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Again, your appeal needs to address your problems. Complaining about other users is no substitute. Cabayi (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2020 (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.
- Making personal attacks definitely won't help you in your crusade to get unblocked. My employment status is no concern of yours, cheers. Your edits were deemed to be unconstructive by two editors, not just me, and your suggestion that User:Serial Number 54129 didn't make their own decision is somewhat insulting to them. – PeeJay 11:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Goodbye talkpage access, hello rest of internet".... ——Serial # 11:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I removed the pewsonal attack and will revdel. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: Honestly, I think it's important the personal attack remain in place. – PeeJay 17:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (help!) 12:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
July 2020[edit]
Hello, Goofdawg, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Riku maina (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. – PeeJay 15:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Block evasion[edit]
This user has engaged in block evasion as Thepaulscholespro. --Yamla (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)