From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
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: "I was blocked by OhNoitsJamie for what I assume was seen as a personal attack aimed at him. My comment was partly directed at him; it referred to what I believe to be his biased treatment of people editing The Game (mind game) article. He has clearly been very strongly opposed to this article for a number of years. I am not sure how to interpret policy here, but if I wish to complain about the behaviour of a Wikipedia user, then how can I do this without being blocked for making a personal attack. I also believe that he has breached WP:No personal attacks by deleting my comment from the discussion page. As I said, he has had a long history with this article which can be seen in the various history pages and AfDs, but all you need to do is look at his comments and actions on Talk:The Game (mind game) to understand why I made my comment. Thanks. LosingTheGame2 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "No, you were blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Please use your main account to request an unblock. — Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (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.
Additionally, you were blocked because you admit to hosting a website that distributes a tool to vandalize Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
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: "I created another account because someone, I assume OhNoitsJamie, deleted my LosingTheGame account. I hardly see how this can constitute abusing multiple accounts if my previous account has already been deleted. Not to mention that it was deleted after a single edit and I was given no explanation or opportunity for discussion. LosingTheGame2 (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "Accounts cannot be deleted, and in any event, block evasion is not an excuse for sockpuppetry. Jamie's rationale below is more than sufficient for a block. — Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:05, 8 May 2008 (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.
If you're going to host a site that promotes vandalism of Wikipedia via a plugin you distribute, you don't get to edit Wikipedia (especially if all your doing is trolling talk pages). OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point, although it all seems fairly pointless as of course I can just make another account and not say who I am...Oh well...
I'm still not sure why you need to delete my comment though. It wasn't trolling, the bits not directed at you were making the point that there is no policy that supports my website not being added as an external link. I would be happy to discuss it here. If you can't show me any such policy then I will assume I'm right... LosingTheGame2 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's the same policy that you were pointed to years ago when you were spamming articles and creating nonsense articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Which is...? (links please) By the way, do you mean nonsense articles about a certain mind game, which now appears to have been deem sensical enough to have an article? LosingTheGame2 (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- *Tumbleweed blows passed*
- *Chirp chirp, chirp chirp* (crickets somewhere in the distance)
- Well looks like there is no such policy... or you fell asleep or something... hmmm... LosingTheGame2 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- "all you're doing" by the way. It's a contraction of "you are". LosingTheGame2 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
