User talk:Amerijuanican
December 2015
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Katietalk 02:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Stubbornly, I feel the 24-hour ban is fair given the three-edit rule. But to make it clear, I don't want to "retaliate" against anyone for anything, so there isn't much else to say there. I'm simply trying to match the information from the main article of the Siege of Fort Erie with the information on the main article of the War of 1812. The information on the main article (of the war of 1812) states that the siege ended in both sides retreating, when it didn't. The battle ended in a British retreat, with the Americans holding the fort for over a month after the battle before destroying and abandoning it as a result of supply shortages. This wording can be be majorly misconceiving to viewers about the way the battle ended and I feel this should be changed. That's all, I don't mean to cause problems with anyone but facts are facts and these aren't difficult to see. Amerijuanican (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've changed this block to indefinite for sockpuppetry, per the evidence supplied at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't edited under that account in over a year, and frankly your "investigation" proves nothing else but at one point two accounts made edits on the same articles - therefore your block solely based on that reason is unjustified. This is my account and I use no other to make edits, I'd really appreciate it if other Wikipedians with more experience than me would stop using minuscule items to get me blocked because I'm adding legitimate information they don't like seeing. Amerijuanican (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Amerijuanican (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't understand my block, this is the only account I use and edit under. The other account was blocked and can't be edited under, so I couldn't have committed sock puppetry. Once again, contributions prove that. I do not deserve to be blocked indefinitely and it seemed to have come out of nowhere. I ask again any administrator with the ability to unblock me to do so as soon as possible please.
Decline reason:
Blocks apply to the user, not the account. If you have another account which is blocked, you should not be using this account. Make your appeal from the talk page of your original account. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2015 (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.
Amerijuanican (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
None of my other accounts created can be edited from, and haven't been able to for six months to a year, so I couldn't have committed this accusation. And, as previously stated, this has been my only account since the others were deactivated. I don't deserve to be indefinitely blocked for something I haven't done and ask kindly for an administrator to reconsider this. I've done very well at following the rules under this account and would like to maintain it. Thank you for taking the time to view my request.
Decline reason:
Only one request at any one time, please. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:16, 16 December 2015 (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.
Amerijuanican (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
None of my other accounts created can be edited from, and haven't been able to for six months to a year, so I couldn't have committed this accusation. And, as previously stated, this has been my only account since the others were deactivated. I don't deserve to be indefinitely blocked for something I haven't done and ask kindly for an administrator to reconsider this. I've done very well at following the rules under this account and would like to maintain it. Thank you for taking the time to view my request.
Decline reason:
Only one request at any one time, please. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:16, 16 December 2015 (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.
Amerijuanican (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was recently blocked for sockpuppetry when this is the only account I've edited under in over a year, which my contributions prove contrary to the so-called "evidence" from the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory. I'm currently serving out a 24-hour ban for the three-revert rule and have no issue with that, but I would like to be removed from the indefinitely blocked list - I've committed no sockpuppetry. Thank you for your time in viewing this request.
Decline reason:
Looking at your edits, no way this is your first account here. Max Semenik (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2015 (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.
Amerijuanican (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't understand my block, this is the only account I use and edit under. The other account was blocked and can't be edited under, so I couldn't have committed sock puppetry. Once again, contributions prove that. I do not deserve to be blocked indefinitely and it seemed to have come out of nowhere. I ask again any administrator with the ability to unblock me to do so as soon as possible please.
Decline reason:
Blocks apply to the user, not the account. If you have another account which is blocked, you should not be using this account. Make your appeal from the talk page of your original account. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2015 (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.
Amerijuanican (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Okay, let me attempt to make this a tad bit clearer and repeat myself. I don't understand my block, this is the only account I use and edit under. The other account was blocked and can't be edited under, nor will it even allow me to log into the account and make an appeal, so I couldn't have committed sock puppetry, the stated reason for ban. Once again, contributions prove that. I do not deserve to be blocked indefinitely and it seemed to have come out of nowhere. I ask again any administrator with the ability to unblock me to do so as soon as possible please.
Decline reason:
A block applies to you, the editor, not to any specidic account. the block applied to the earlier account remains in force, and creating and editing from another account is block evasion, which is normally immediately blockable. If you request unblock you will need to address the reasons leading to your original block. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:16, 16 December 2015 (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.
(Link to meta:Steward requests/Global)
- See
- this reqest (3:38, 18 December 2015)
- Not done (06:58, 19 December 2015)
- this exchange (07:56, 19 December 2015)
- -- PBS (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Enough! I am blocking access by Amerijuanican to this talk page. You must request an unblock of your primary sockmaster account. Not this one. While the talk page of that account is unavailable to you, if wish to appeal the block you can use the Unblock Ticket Request System or email the Arbitration Committee as detailed at WP:BASC. -- PBS (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Amerijuanican. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Lowara Madi incident for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowara Madi incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.