User talk:ShirtNShoesPls

Hi ShirtNShoesPls! I would like to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

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

Happy editing! — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Brothers of Italy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish well said,,say I Armystrong1975 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Race and intelligence. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information was being removed from the article. Not deleted. There was a Quillette article a week ago that has led to negative information about "racialist" editors surrounding race/intelligence to be removed from their leads. It was restoring the status quo. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That template didn't really work well so I'll explain. This is clear canvassing. Any notifications about discussions must be neutral. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my intention. I was attempting to have the consensus description restored. My apologies if there was any misinterpretation. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You also must stop making allegations of whitewashing and vandalism against other editors and edit warring. You're currently involved in edit wars on multiple articles and you respond to other editors with aspersions and hostility. You're also editing in CTOPs, which require your behavior to be excellent. Knock it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax. Thank you. Pbritti (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Fiducia supplicans, you may be blocked from editing. –DMartin 03:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Pbritti (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wa just a question. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said, quote, John Boswell states that the Catholic Church accepted homosexuality during the middle ages. It was only when homophobic priests misinterpreted parts of Sodom and Gomorrah that it actually became a so-called problem. There is no question in there. That is definitionally off-topic. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article says longstanding. As someone who went to Catholic high school, we were taught that the opposition is relatively recent. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say longstanding, nor did your comment. Please consider avoiding contentious topics that you feel uncertain about the details of. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up 2600:8803:A309:F800:A53E:E78C:F7E7:3098 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Generalrelative (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Generalrelative (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShirtNShoesPls! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Charles Murray (political scientist) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Prcc27 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's authoritarianism merits mention. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if it does merit mention or not; you can still be banned for edit warring. When you are reverted, the best thing to do is to go to the talk and seek consensus for your proposed edits. Prcc27 (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a few hours to revert your move of Fernández's comments on Fiducia supplicans, otherwise I will take this to WP:AN3. You have repeatedly, unilaterally defied consensus. You will be blocked if you fail to self-revert, as you appear to regularly edit-war. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus in the church on the matter. Who are the other editors who agree with you? The only people involved in this discussion presently are me and you. I started a request for comments to decide this. (Since we're clearly not going to agree.)

On another note, you clearly have a grudge against me, probably because I'm a liberal Catholic. You're conservative. Again, that's fine. We're free to disagree... but stop being so stunningly rude and attempting to trip me up so I get banned.

Political disagreements shouldn't be taken personally.

I started a RFC. Thanks. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your process thus far has been 1.) make an edit 2.) start a discussion when it gets reverted 3.) when multiple editors disagree with you, revert it back to what you want anyway 4.) start an RfC in the hopes others will agree with you. Sorry, but when consensus disagrees with you, you can't just keep pushing the issue. Also, I did nothing to trip you up—given your talk page, you seem plenty competent at edit warring on your own. Don't make assumptions about my identity, by the way; you'd be surprised. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! ShirtNShoesPls, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out. Thank you! ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at Season of Swatting, you may be blocked from editing. Restoring a reverted page move without consensus violates policy. Please immediately undo your actions. Pbritti (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RM/CM for guidance. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor supported the move. Neither title is perfect. However, the proposed change is the superior choice at the moment. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then propose the move. Barring a SNOW close or extended discussion, that process will take roughly a week. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have yet to provide any more sources than the one Florida blog post and then the CITOGENESIS Bloomberg piece, your insistence on this term and your constant, unsupported claiming of other sources suggests less than neutral, fact-based intent. I am so very close to raising this elsewhere, given your POV-pushing across a variety of other subject areas. Please, stick to sourcing, recognize the massive foul up in inventing "Season of Swatting", and move on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the vague threats and belittling retorts. Just because I disagree with your opinion doesn't mean that I have anything against you.

POV pushing? Where? The only one that has been making accusations has been you. Disagreements are normative. Florida Politics used "Season of Swatting" with capitalized letters before I did on their Twitter. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I didn't read this until now. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Providing a source for your claims would be great. Over and over I have asked you to provide sources. You've been evasive about your previous accounts, added false information to articles, edit-warred, and refused to accept fault. When confronted with articles that contradicted your favored interpretation of a Catholic document, you discounted reliable sources in favor of your priest in Tennessee. When told you needed reliable sources to claim an event was called a sensationalist name, you edit-warred until a news organization ultimately picked it up. Your other article creation is a trivial, NOTNEWS-violating article about a TikTok/Twitter trend. Please, reconsider your editing habits. Learn first, rather than diving in head-first. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shenna Bellows, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evacuation. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ShirtNShoesPls

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Bastun, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Miami mall incident, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Bastun}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ShirtNShoesPls,

Thank you for creating Miami mall incident.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Mainstream media coverage focuses on the realities of this event - a minor riot with several arrests of teenagers - yet this article focuses almost entirely on the "internet phenomenon"/hysteria aspects of the story. I suggest re-writing per WP:NPOV to concentrate on the actual facts, especially in the lede, with one section dedicated to the weird Florida things.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on the Trumpism article. I appreciate your edits, however, I would recommend finding more sources, preferably journalistic ones, for some of the claims about racism, anti-immigrant, nativist, and other such descriptors used. While I do not disagree with these statements, and there are plenty of reliable sources to back up these claims, you must be aware by now that they will undoubtedly be challenged in the future by editors who disagree with them. I would recommend adding an additional, high-quality journalistic source for each of these claims. BootsED (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Plot armor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot armor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

‍ Relativity 20:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Batman (Arkhamverse). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Harley Quinn (Arkhamverse). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please refrain for adding speculative information to articles as you did on Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, we have no idea about the internal concern of the studio and neither does the author of the article, they were just speculating. It can be incredibly damaging to both articles and wikipedia's reputation to spread misinformation.

Kind regards,

2A00:23C5:8104:2401:EDAA:F380:ED72:1868 (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, you may be blocked from editing. If you want to describe the game as "negatively reviewed" source it.

Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a violation of the NPOV policy to repeat what critics have written about the game. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very much an NPOV violation to find a single article that you believe supports your viewpoint, claim that the game had "negative to mixed reviews" with no source to support said statement, make up a series specific areas of criticism without sources, and then leave an edit summary seemingly copping to that stating "Could someone expand the citations for this? Thx." because you were claiming it all off of the back of a single source that wasn't even a review. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a single article. I just meant that the article needed further improvements. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Batman: Arkham, you may be blocked from editing. The games have existed for approaching 15 years at this point, and in that time no articles on individual interpretations of the characters in the series have been created, making any creating of them inherently unlikely. Therefore refrain from altering the template to add redlinks until such a point those articles are created. If you wish to see such articles created I suggest you follow the advice in the template above and go to either the reference desk to ask where to go or relevant project talk pages.

Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Joker (Arkhamverse), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to Draft:Joker (Arkhamverse) where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing.

Just copy and pasting plot summaries from other articles doesn't support the creation of a new article, before then adding what looks to be nothing more than randomly googling articles on the games in question and adding citations of them despite the clear lack of support for what's stated just makes it look like disruptive editing.

Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miami mall incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami mall incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 04:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sweet Baby Inc., may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Sweet Baby Inc.. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ageism against Joe Biden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is already a draft article on Wiki. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ageism_against_Joe_Biden)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ageism against Joe Biden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ageism against Joe Biden until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Joe Biden for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Please discuss changes to a different article on the article’s talk page. SKAG123 (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again as you did at Ageism against Joe Biden and United States, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Namely you appear to be engaging in deliberate quote manufacture/misrepresentation to push your POV (examples: Ageism claim and rebuttal, United States claim and rebuttal)

Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]