User talk:FrancesJefferson

August 2015[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Dwight D. Eisenhower has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Dwight D. Eisenhower was changed by FrancesJefferson (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.958263 on 2015-08-21T18:52:15+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did to Dwight D. Eisenhower, will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Sockpuppet of banned editor User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet. (FrancesJefferson (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Dwight D. Eisenhower. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 ~~~~}}.

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. Favonian (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have not vandalized any articles. I only felt that it was wrong for the lede to say Eisenhower's presidency was peaceful as it took place in the context of the height of Cold War tensions between the West and the Soviet Union/China. FrancesJefferson (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After the block expires, you should use the talk page to resolve editing disagreements instead of edit warrring. PhilKnight (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2015 (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.

.

Edit-warring is just as problematic as vandalism, since it essentially holds the article hostage. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 1953 Iranian and 1954 Guatemalan coup d'etats need to be mentioned in the lede as they are by far the most controversial events in Eisenhower's presidency. (FrancesJefferson (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I still can't edit despite the 24-hour block having expired. FrancesJefferson (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It will expire in 40 minutes. Kuru (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (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.