User talk:63.135.11.194

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:NawlinWiki may be offensive or unwelcome. In case you are the user, please login under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, particularly to userpages. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Amos Han Talk 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:63.135.11.194. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Amos Han Talk 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's request to have the autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been DECLINED.

original block message

  • Decline reason:

Gabeyg sock. – Steel 16:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued interference by User:AirFrance358 with sock tags after block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. —dgiestc 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

—dgiestc 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] To dgies,

I did not touch the tag. I added to this IP address that this IP is AirFrance358, me, 's IP address.

So, technically, I really, really, really didn't touch the tag...

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "only added the text, not touched the sockpuppet tag"

Decline reason: "You were blocked twice for wiping sockpuppet tags despite multiple warnings not to, then you evade your block by editing anon so that you can remove Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AirFrance358. —dgiestc 15:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Also, I redirected User:Gabeyg to User:AirFrance358, so that when people click Gabeyg, people can go to User:AirFrance358. So, before then, it was more confusing.I was not trying to avoid the responsibility, but to have responsibility. It was NOT VANDALISM OR SOCKPUPPET TAG DISRUPTION. --User:AirFrance358

[edit] Please..

Please redirect User:Gabeyg to User:AirFrance358. It's same person.!

[edit] Release the protection..

Please release the protection of the discussion page of 63.135.11.194 page. I want to say a lots of things. This time, really, I didn't touch the tags. I promise I will NEVER do that. Last contribution was to redirect User:Gabeyg to AirFrance358. It wasn't tag that I touched. Also, it is same person. I moved. (If you see in ID changing place, you will see me...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.86.156 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2007

If I were to unprotect that page, your past behavior suggests you would place unblock notices which do not provide a valid rationale for unblocking. This would make you show up in Category:Requests for unblock and other admins would need to waste their time evaluating the situation before they come to the same conclusion as several of us already have: That your block is justified because of continued interference with sock tags after warnings. The IP block and talk page protection expire in about 4 days. Once that happens you may petition to get AirFrance358 unblocked, but note that continued protestation that the block was unfair will likely not help, as you have had many warnings. Your best bet to staying unblocked is to agree to not touch those tags and instead petition for their removal by others through WP:ANI. —dgiestc 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No vandalism

Hey, isn't sandbox to be for experiments? I wasn't vandalizing. I never touched Wikipedia article. I just requested unprotection in User:AirFrance358 (Which is my account, which is now totally unusable.).

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Reason in this section (previous paragraph)."

Decline reason: "Confirmed abusive sockpuppet. While AirFrance358 is blocked, you are not permitted to edit, either with that account, with any other account, or via this IP address. — Yamla 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Do not think that this is chore, please. Do not protect this page!

[edit] Without notice

Blocked without any single template. This is not Fair! (From me and conservative party of Canada.) (Liberal party supports-joking, huh!)

[edit] Then, request unprotection!

Unprotect the talk page, then. Then, I will stop using this anom. IP.

[edit] ARADADS

Afd nomination on some admins and some wikipedia rules!


[edit] Be careful with the words!

Sock and suck are considered bad. LEt's change that. Also, define sockpuppet more, not good admins! (Sockpuppet in the term of admins, but not in the rule of U.S. and Wikipedia rules, is that the friends nearby can be also sockpuppets. Define it! More Carefully!) Also, part admins want to disrupt me up. (NLOU)

[edit] How about this...

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Reasons in many areas"

Decline reason: "Only the sockpuppeteer account is eligible for unblock consideration.— Yamla 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

OK. Blcok this IP and release the AirFrance358. (So that sockpuppet issues will be gone.) Then, there would be no problems. Also, redirect User:Gabeyg to AirFrance358. Then, I will stop protesting(Hey, you admins are not listening this message carefully, man!) (admins have jobs to listen users!) (Also, one month is too much compared to what I have done. Shorten it to half of it.) (Also, I didn't realize the Wikipedia rule (In another unblock template) . I now feel sorry about that particular activity. )

[edit] This is not request for unblock.

Request unprotection of talk page of AirFrance358.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "This is not unblock request, requesting unprotection of talk page of User:AirFrance358"

Decline reason: "Unblock abuse. — Yamla 14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.