User talk:Deadmanboateng

October 2025

Hello, I'm ProClasher97. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 17:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jérôme Boateng. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 17:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your talk page as I have been banned Deadmanboateng (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Deadmanboateng. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 21:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)== Unblock requests ==[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).

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

Request reason:

How can you say I have a vandalism only account when I’ve made only two article edits. Since my latest warning I have not made any further edits to articles. It seems to me that you have assumed that I am am only going to vandalise because of my username. This is clear bias and prejudice. Might I suggest a limited time block instead of outright banning my account from editing ever again?Deadmanboateng (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your two article edits were not only thoroughly unconstructive but were WP:BLP violations. Yes, we are biased against people who deliberately put false information in articles about people who are alive- even more so when it is claimed they are dead, and when it is claimed one person murdered another. I get that you may have meant this all figuratively and not literally, but we take things literally here. If you thought your edits were appropriate even figuratively, this is indeed a vandalism only account and the block is appropriate. Not a fan of the username, either. If you have constructive edits you want to make, please give an example of one. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2025 (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.

Going Forward

I am new to wikipedia so it is a shame that if a new editor messes up slightly your policy is to ban them outright rather than give a 2nd chance. Secondly, whether you are a fan of my username or not should have no influence on the decision to block me. You have demonstrated clear bias and your administrative privileges ought to be promptly revoked. Thirdly, how can I give you an example of constructive edits when I have been banned after just 2 article edits. Finally, as you have refused to be reasonable and offer a second chance you have forced my hand. I will continue to make new accounts and vandalise as you have left me no other choice unfortunately. Have a good evening. Deadmanboateng (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't tolerate threats like this here. You are clearly operating in bad faith. --Yamla (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going to do about it little man? I’ve made 6 accounts already since the block and will continue to vandalise. This could have been entirely avoided.Deadmanboateng (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read first unblock request for context

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).

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

Request reason:

I am new to wikipedia so it is a shame that if a new editor messes up slightly your policy is to ban them outright rather than give a 2nd chance. Secondly, whether you are a fan of my username or not should have no influence on the decision to block me. You have demonstrated clear bias and your administrative privileges ought to be promptly revoked. Thirdly, how can I give you an example of constructive edits when I have been banned after just 2 article edits. Finally, as you have refused to be reasonable and offer a second chance you have forced my hand. I will continue to make new accounts and vandalise as you have left me no other choice unfortunately. Have a good evening. Deadmanboateng (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were given a second chance. You were told to give an example of a constructive edit you plan to make. You squandered that second chance despite being perfectly able to explain a constructive edit here, and instead continue to insist that your serious WP:BLP violation was a minor offense. Why you think WP:USERNAME shouldn't matter is beyond me. Yamla (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2025 (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.

Blocked

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
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, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Yamla (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]