User talk:95.239.91.224

Disruptive editing

Hi. I just wanted to inform you that you must provide a proper source to back up your claim on the Ratchet & Clank page. Please consider this message as a warning. If you attempt to forgo this warning and undo any changes on a consistent basis, I will report you for disruptive editing. Elainasla (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were told to make your case at the talk page. You know very well that your edit would be controversial and yet you still went ahead. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I work for IGN, I posted an article published June 15, where is clear that the game is not clearly a sequel of 2016 game, because Insomniac not clarified yet. How can be a controversal source if I even work with the site? It sounds strange. Someone can help me and say why it was not a valid source if is IGN? And I work for them... stating that the game is a sequel is an incorret info, becauce we don't know. The article of IGN was written during the PS5 event, nobody know nothing and Sony give press material to sites like IGN, in the press material they don't say anything about the sequel. If they announce that is a sequel to Into the Nexus this sotry will be more ridicolous, I'll wrote an article for sure.. 95.239.91.224 (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's a couple of aspects here. The first is that no original research can't be used as sourcing information here, so personal knowledge wouldn't be a viable defence for a claim. Your appeal also indicates there might be paid conflict of interest issues. I've not declined it on those grounds, since it may be the case that you have the information (or not) through your job, but you're only editing as someone who is interested, on an article with no job implications. Even if your source was excellent, it would be still be necessary to discuss it on the talk page with other editors rather than making disruptive, controversial edits. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2020 (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.

June 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RexxS (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.