User talk:2001:44B8:613B:3800:9591:2A1F:CD07:A4BD

July 2022
Hello, I'm Fehufanga. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Mount Rushmore have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 11:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your servile contributions to protecting the legacies of racists, and to furthering racism in the present day! 2001:44B8:613B:3800:9591:2A1F:CD07:A4BD (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gutzon Borglum. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 12:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * My edits were constructive. Please stop vandalising my edits. Thank you. 2001:44B8:613B:3800:9591:2A1F:CD07:A4BD (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Gutzon Borglum. --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 12:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You are performing historical revisionism and furthering racism. You were not popularly elected by Wikipedia users or the general public, nor do you have any formal qualifications in this field to back up your right to decide the contents of this article. You are a racist, abusing their undemocratic power to have greater influence over society than you would be afforded without exploiting this undemocratic system. It's pathetic and contemptible. Do not vandalise my edits any further. 2001:44B8:613B:3800:9591:2A1F:CD07:A4BD (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have blocked this IP range for 31 hours as you have persisted in making disruptive edits to articles. When the block expires you are welcome to discuss changes on the article's talk page - please bear in mind that articles should not give undue weight to any particular viewpoint, but rather neutrally cover what reliable sources have written about subjects. I have not looked at the merits of the changes to Gutzon Borglum (i.e. you may be entirely right), but nevertheless repeatedly inserting the same changes and describing reversion to the status quo ante as vandalism is not a great look. firefly  ( t · c ) 12:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you haven't looked at the content of the article then you have absolutely no business whatsoever making changes to the article. That is vandalism. 2001:44B8:613B:3800:9591:2A1F:CD07:A4BD (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)