Misplaced Pages

User talk:Whiteknight2999: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:55, 26 November 2012 editFred Bauder (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users46,115 edits Warning← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:49, 29 August 2013 edit undoSporkBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,245,159 editsm Replace template per TFD outcome; no change in content 
(12 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
==Warning== ==Warning==
Replacing an article with two Bible verses is considered vandalism. If you continue you will be blocked indefinitely. ] ] 02:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Replacing an article with two Bible verses is considered vandalism. If you continue you will be blocked indefinitely. ] ] 02:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|this is my only account and it need to be unblocked just because im unable to post what i think is fair should not be a reason to block me

{{unblock reviewed|Single owner of single account No sock puppetry here now unblock me|decline=No. Not with edits like that. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed | 1= Single account Single owner and i just posted what i see as the truth i am asking unblock me | decline=If your intent is to continue to post "the truth" as you see it, then unblocking you would be a poor choice. ] ] 04:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed| I was warned by one admin andthen i was blocked for sock puppetry not anything else i assure you i am the only one using this account and it is my only account and i dont think it fair that i was blocked by one admin after my FIRST warning when i did nothing else look at my posts and my talk ] (]) 07:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
|decline=Socks are blocked on sight, no warnings needed. And you exactly like Brucejenner. ] (]) 08:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
}}

<div class="user-block" style="background-color:#ffcccc;"><p>]This ] (<span style="font-size:0.9em;" class="plainlinks"> | | | | ] | ] | </span>) has had their talk page access revoked because an ] has identified this user's talkpage edits '''as inappropriate and/or disruptive.''' If you would like to make further requests, you may contact ] at ''arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org''. Please note that there could be appeals to the ] that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
----
;Request reason
<blockquote>Ok well then ill just make another account Due to the fact that i have no idea who this Brucejenner is and i dont really care it seems to be bullshit that so few have power to decide what so many can do ]</blockquote>
;Revoke reason
<blockquote>Threatening further sockpuppetry and sending abusive emails has lost you talkpage and email access. ] (]) 13:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)</blockquote>
----
</span></div><!-- Template:Unblock talk-revoked -->

Latest revision as of 04:49, 29 August 2013


November 2012

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Warning

Replacing an article with two Bible verses is considered vandalism. If you continue you will be blocked indefinitely. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC) {{unblock|this is my only account and it need to be unblocked just because im unable to post what i think is fair should not be a reason to block me

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).

Whiteknight2999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Single owner of single account No sock puppetry here now unblock me

Decline reason:

No. Not with edits like that. --jpgordon 15:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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.

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).

Whiteknight2999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Single account Single owner and i just posted what i see as the truth i am asking unblock me

Decline reason:

If your intent is to continue to post "the truth" as you see it, then unblocking you would be a poor choice. Kuru (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

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).

Whiteknight2999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was warned by one admin andthen i was blocked for sock puppetry not anything else i assure you i am the only one using this account and it is my only account and i dont think it fair that i was blocked by one admin after my FIRST warning when i did nothing else look at my posts and my talk Whiteknight2999 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Socks are blocked on sight, no warnings needed. And you behaved exactly like Brucejenner. Max Semenik (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

This blocked user (block log | active blocks | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs | abuse log) has had their talk page access revoked because an administrator has identified this user's talkpage edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. If you would like to make further requests, you may contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Request reason

Ok well then ill just make another account Due to the fact that i have no idea who this Brucejenner is and i dont really care it seems to be bullshit that so few have power to decide what so many can do Whiteknight2999

Revoke reason

Threatening further sockpuppetry and sending abusive emails has lost you talkpage and email access. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)