User talk:Bischof-Ralph

GOD BLESS YOU !

You have been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing, namely creating a hoax article. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Daniel Case (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I DID NEVER CREATE A HOAX ARTICLE

Decline reason:

Sorry, Herr Alfred Seiwert-Fleige, Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion. Sandstein 17:20, 30 January 2010 (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.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bischof-Ralph for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Wine Guy~Talk 04:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been banned because of "creating a hoax article". But after many contributions to this article everybody can see that this is obviously not a hoax article: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige There are 13 references now. So I guess that there is no more reason to block me ? And the fact that the Bishop I did write the article about is mentioned in many other articles in Wikipedia is another proof. My last request to unblock me, was declined with the explanation that I would be Alfred Seiwert-Fleige myself. But I am not this person. And I am not the puppetmaster of somebody else either. If people add information and give source and proof about informations they should not be banned because of their good work. And since I have a group of about 15000 readers of my informations and I will soon write more about what happend in wikipedia, there might come others that will edit articles too. Will they all be deleted as my sockpuppets? Nobody can show that I did give wrong informations and all I said is well proofed with sources so there is realy no reason anymore to block me. The reason of writing an hoax article is very obviously proofen wrong now. So please unblock me.

Decline reason:

First, you were WP:BLOCKed and not WP:BANned. Second, you may have been blocked for a hoax, but you will remain blocked for the sockpuppetry which you have used in order to keep this article on Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:59, 12 February 2010 (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.

AfD nomination of Alfred Seiwert-Fleige

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alfred Seiwert-Fleige. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Seiwert-Fleige (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SGGH ^ping! 20:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]