Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove
Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in
Articles for deletion debates, as you did with
Jennifer Rattray. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create
consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please
comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a
bot about
this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please
report it.—
cyberbot I
NotifyOnline
00:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Decuw ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
i have been unjustly accused of sockpuppetry...am a good wikiuser
Decline reason:
No you haven't. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 11:24, 11 April 2014 (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.
Decuw ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't think that JamesBWatson constitute appropriate administrative reasons for censorship under the rules. Locks are supposed to be preventative not punitive. I am appealing the denial on the basis of a lack of reasons or logic provided in both the case of the lock and the refusal of the appeal. Surely a lock requires reason and evidence not a need to be punitive on the basis of wiki-fifedom?
Decline reason:
There are roughly 30 socks associated with this account, many of them checkuser verified. This block prevents further disruptive editing until you can convince someone that you will cease the duplicitous behavior. Kuru (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2014 (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.
Decuw ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
Per below. — Daniel Case ( talk) 22:23, 14 April 2014 (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.
you have basically given me a Wiki death sentence based on the fact that a team of separate people wanted to set the record straight on one or two pages. Must I be silenced forever because some people think that the person whose page I was editing (with citations!) is a folk hero? I thought this was supposed to be a marketplace of ideas? Further, most of those socks are not me, and just because checkuser found an IP address or two in common - I have explained this. There was several of us living in this house all involved on the UW wiki project. How long must I remain in purgatory? Surely I am not the first wiki editor to work in a collective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decuw ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 14 April 2014
Since you really can't find any reasons to unblock, don't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and have inadvertently provided further evidence in support of the socking allegations, I have revoked your talk page access. You will have to request unblock through email from now on. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove
Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in
Articles for deletion debates, as you did with
Jennifer Rattray. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create
consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please
comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a
bot about
this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please
report it.—
cyberbot I
NotifyOnline
00:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Decuw ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
i have been unjustly accused of sockpuppetry...am a good wikiuser
Decline reason:
No you haven't. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 11:24, 11 April 2014 (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.
Decuw ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't think that JamesBWatson constitute appropriate administrative reasons for censorship under the rules. Locks are supposed to be preventative not punitive. I am appealing the denial on the basis of a lack of reasons or logic provided in both the case of the lock and the refusal of the appeal. Surely a lock requires reason and evidence not a need to be punitive on the basis of wiki-fifedom?
Decline reason:
There are roughly 30 socks associated with this account, many of them checkuser verified. This block prevents further disruptive editing until you can convince someone that you will cease the duplicitous behavior. Kuru (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2014 (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.
Decuw ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
Per below. — Daniel Case ( talk) 22:23, 14 April 2014 (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.
you have basically given me a Wiki death sentence based on the fact that a team of separate people wanted to set the record straight on one or two pages. Must I be silenced forever because some people think that the person whose page I was editing (with citations!) is a folk hero? I thought this was supposed to be a marketplace of ideas? Further, most of those socks are not me, and just because checkuser found an IP address or two in common - I have explained this. There was several of us living in this house all involved on the UW wiki project. How long must I remain in purgatory? Surely I am not the first wiki editor to work in a collective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decuw ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 14 April 2014
Since you really can't find any reasons to unblock, don't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and have inadvertently provided further evidence in support of the socking allegations, I have revoked your talk page access. You will have to request unblock through email from now on. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))