User talk:86.182.32.83

August 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Type 99 tank. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Khazar (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Type 99. Khazar (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

September 2015

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  KrakatoaKatie 01:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Added properly sourced materials according to Wikipedia's guideline. Translations of non-English materials followed Wikipedia's guideline. Criticism of these edits having "no reference source" are groundless. Please review history, thank you. 86.182.32.83 (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You ignored several warnings and were subsequently blocked. After this block expires, I suggest you use the article's talk page to discuss the content you wish to add. If you resume edit-warring after this block is lifted, your next block will be for a longer duration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 2 September 2015 (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.

Template:Rely toI will keep what you have said in mind, but I believe your concerns to be unfounded. The warnings you referred were generic reasons given for reverts rather than directed at actual faults. Specifically, warnings such as "unsourced content" and "unreliable source" were given, while all my edits were accompanied by references and came from authoritative sources. Furthermore, I have to my best of my abilities, addressed specific criticisms raised by these warnings, such as using alternate sources. These were met with undo using the same generic reasons. No offers were made to "talk" about it. I had no choice but to revert what I assumed as disruptive editing and other attempts at removing referenced source. Again, I am keeping what you said in mind, but please note the circumstances. 86.182.32.83 (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)