User talk:Whatiswrongwithwiki

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Tre Arrow has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Geeta Mera Naam. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Stroppolo (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Triplestop x3 00:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Latin literature in the Church

Please stop. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Whatiswrongwithwiki_problematic_edits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Was I 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).

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

Request reason:

What did i do?

Decline reason:

You are the return of User:Lolfunk, recently blocked for identical behaviour. The shared computer argument doesn't fly. Risker (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please do not remove this original response from the page. That is not acceptable per our blocking policy. Risker (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You where blocked because of "Block evasion". I would just like to point out, in [[1]], the user has not been showing socking behavoir, and, if the user is a sock, unlike Bambifan, the is first sock most likely. The user just wants a new start.Abce2|This isnot a test 02:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, this is a shared computer, so will I be un-banned?

Err...I'm talking with the blocking admin currently. I can't say anything else much. Nothing to say.Abce2|This isnot a test 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this sucks. Is there any time when this ban will be up?

Regretfully, it's indefinate, or forever until someone says otherwise.Abce2|This isnot a test 02:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you where here for a fresh start, were you not?Abce2|This isnot a test 02:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try another unblock request. Mentioning that you wanted a new start.Abce2|This isnot a test 02:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny that you are a sock of a blocked user? Note that Risker has access to IP logs. Also, if you are looking for a new start, why did you repeat your bad edits from before? Triplestop x3 02:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incase you don't know, socking is using another account. Abce2|This isnot a test 02:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock, but those edits what made me realize i needed a fresh start. after one i Though "This could be a great place if it was without stuff like this", like mono-purpose wikis, such as [[2]] who are extremely credible.

Given that you are trying to deny using sock accounts when a Checkuser has shown it, and your removing the previous unblock request, I am not convinced. Triplestop x3 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so be it. Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious Wiki, in what manner do you use the word "sock"?Abce2|This isnot a test 02:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i see your point. i will be gone from wiki, now that i have read over what Sock means. Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused again. Gone from wiki? Does that imply your leaving? I can't understand your comment.Abce2|This isnot a test 02:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yup. I am removing the unblock request.

You dont have to leave. If you want a fresh start your entitled to one.--Coldplay Expert 02:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not in america. Bye.

If you really wanted a fresh start than going to Template:2nd chance and following the instrucitons there would make a compelling case. Triplestop x3 02:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your back? Abce2|This isnot a test 03:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I wonder why the article was deleted though? I wish i knew.