User talk:Amerijuanican

December 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at War of 1812. 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 to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. Katietalk 02:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Stubbornly, I feel the 24-hour ban is fair given the three-edit rule. But to make it clear, I don't want to "retaliate" against anyone for anything, so there isn't much else to say there. I'm simply trying to match the information from the main article of the Siege of Fort Erie with the information on the main article of the War of 1812. The information on the main article (of the war of 1812) states that the siege ended in both sides retreating, when it didn't. The battle ended in a British retreat, with the Americans holding the fort for over a month after the battle before destroying and abandoning it as a result of supply shortages. This wording can be be majorly misconceiving to viewers about the way the battle ended and I feel this should be changed. That's all, I don't mean to cause problems with anyone but facts are facts and these aren't difficult to see. Amerijuanican (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've changed this block to indefinite for sockpuppetry, per the evidence supplied at Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't edited under that account in over a year, and frankly your "investigation" proves nothing else but at one point two accounts made edits on the same articles - therefore your block solely based on that reason is unjustified. This is my account and I use no other to make edits, I'd really appreciate it if other Wikipedians with more experience than me would stop using minuscule items to get me blocked because I'm adding legitimate information they don't like seeing. Amerijuanican (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(Link to Steward requests/Global)
 * See
 * this reqest (3:38, 18 December 2015)
 * Not done (06:58, 19 December 2015)
 * this exchange (07:56, 19 December 2015)
 * -- PBS (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Enough! I am blocking access by Amerijuanican to this talk page. You must request an unblock of your primary sockmaster account. Not this one. While the talk page of that account is unavailable to you, if wish to appeal the block you can use the Unblock Ticket Request System or email the Arbitration Committee as detailed at WP:BASC. -- PBS (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Lowara Madi incident for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lowara Madi 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 Articles for deletion/Lowara Madi 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. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)