Hello, I'm
Josh3580. I noticed that you recently removed all content from
Reham Khan, with
this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks. —
Josh3580
talk/
hist
18:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Reham Khan, you may be
blocked from editing.
Yunshui
雲
水
13:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Yunshui
雲
水
13:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Having reviewed your contributions (including those of your previous account User:Johnnnnnnnny12345) I have concluded that your only purpose here is to disrupt. As such, I have indefinitely blocked your account. Yunshui 雲 水 13:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
JohnRoach12345 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi. I apologise for my seemingly disruptive behaviour as this was not the intention. I simply found that my corrections of this page were futile as it was prone to vandalism and personal attacks from various other accounts (such as this user Somiya321 who has been posting incredibly personal and libellous information). The misinformation was done out of frustration at these users who would continually fight my efforts to correct the page. I find it incredible that I have been blocked for editing without putting sources but so many other accounts continue to put incorrect information on the page. Some of this relates to relatives of Reham Khan and threatens her personal safety while others are simply attacks on her character. Neither of these should be present on the page. I would like to be unblocked and assure you that it will not happen again. JohnRoach12345 ( talk) 15:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Spare us. You say that you were only correcting libellous information, and then you put in this crap? In real life you could get sued for this. I note also that you haven't bothered to refute Yunshui's mention of your previous account; therefore to me more or less admitting you're a sock. — Daniel Case ( talk) 16:27, 20 February 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.
.
JohnRoach12345 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Yes I wrote that crap. I'm not denying that I did. I'm also not denying that I have a previous account (actually it's the same account but I changed the name I think). If you look back through my edits of the page, you'll see I reverted vandalism 4 or 5 times. Proof. Right there. I simply got irritated at what would have been an 'edit war' or whatever they're called. I notice that the libellous information is STILL on the page. I have no issue with being banned for this if all the other vandals are banned too because frankly, that would just be injustice. And if I could get sued for writing such obvious bullcrap then imagine how badly sued the other people could get for writing the whereabouts of her supposed children on the page? Use your brains. It wasn't malicious. Also, who exactly would sue me? I'm actually safe because I know this person and she's not f***ing happy about your uselessness at stopping all of this slander about her.
Decline reason:
You haven't done anything to convince me that the block is not necessary or no longer necessary and for that reason I am declining your unblock request. However I have protected the page for a week and a half to prevent more violations of the biographies of living persons policy. If you know her then you have a conflict of interest. If she wishes to contact us she should review Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:46, 21 February 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.
Hello, I'm
Josh3580. I noticed that you recently removed all content from
Reham Khan, with
this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks. —
Josh3580
talk/
hist
18:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Reham Khan, you may be
blocked from editing.
Yunshui
雲
水
13:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Yunshui
雲
水
13:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Having reviewed your contributions (including those of your previous account User:Johnnnnnnnny12345) I have concluded that your only purpose here is to disrupt. As such, I have indefinitely blocked your account. Yunshui 雲 水 13:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
JohnRoach12345 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi. I apologise for my seemingly disruptive behaviour as this was not the intention. I simply found that my corrections of this page were futile as it was prone to vandalism and personal attacks from various other accounts (such as this user Somiya321 who has been posting incredibly personal and libellous information). The misinformation was done out of frustration at these users who would continually fight my efforts to correct the page. I find it incredible that I have been blocked for editing without putting sources but so many other accounts continue to put incorrect information on the page. Some of this relates to relatives of Reham Khan and threatens her personal safety while others are simply attacks on her character. Neither of these should be present on the page. I would like to be unblocked and assure you that it will not happen again. JohnRoach12345 ( talk) 15:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Spare us. You say that you were only correcting libellous information, and then you put in this crap? In real life you could get sued for this. I note also that you haven't bothered to refute Yunshui's mention of your previous account; therefore to me more or less admitting you're a sock. — Daniel Case ( talk) 16:27, 20 February 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.
.
JohnRoach12345 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Yes I wrote that crap. I'm not denying that I did. I'm also not denying that I have a previous account (actually it's the same account but I changed the name I think). If you look back through my edits of the page, you'll see I reverted vandalism 4 or 5 times. Proof. Right there. I simply got irritated at what would have been an 'edit war' or whatever they're called. I notice that the libellous information is STILL on the page. I have no issue with being banned for this if all the other vandals are banned too because frankly, that would just be injustice. And if I could get sued for writing such obvious bullcrap then imagine how badly sued the other people could get for writing the whereabouts of her supposed children on the page? Use your brains. It wasn't malicious. Also, who exactly would sue me? I'm actually safe because I know this person and she's not f***ing happy about your uselessness at stopping all of this slander about her.
Decline reason:
You haven't done anything to convince me that the block is not necessary or no longer necessary and for that reason I am declining your unblock request. However I have protected the page for a week and a half to prevent more violations of the biographies of living persons policy. If you know her then you have a conflict of interest. If she wishes to contact us she should review Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:46, 21 February 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.