User talk:Blue Magenta

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 19:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

How really stupid can one be to block a genuine user who is interested in promoting the project wrt the County Londonderry and Donegal areas. So now everyone who dares to edit articles which are supposedly similar to those edited by some former banned user meets the same fate. It is about time someone with common sense took this on board because blocking a genuine user serves no purpose as they will just register another user name and edit elsewhere. What you are actually doing is effectively making the County Londonderry and Donegal areas a no-go area for new users and this cannot be Wikipedia policy. There is absolutely no justification for this block, it seems that one particular user has taken it upon themself to victimise such users yet offer no contributions themself. This is very noticeable when one looks at their history. As a genuine user I have nothing to apologise for, my contribution history speaks for itself. As far as I can see it comes down to some very poor judgement. --Blue Magenta (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block, which is your inappropriate use of multiple accounts. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:41, 6 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't have multiple accounts but this is the road you are forcing me and others to go down. User:Blue Magenta is my only user account and I would like to keep it that way. There is absolutely no justification for blocking this account, it is simply an attempt to disenfranchise the multiple because of the sins of an individual. Just how exactly is someone supposed to improve the project with these petty attacks going on? --Blue Magenta (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Whining (or, as I suppose you would spell it, whingeing) is no substitute for an unblock request. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:12, 6 April 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.

Has it occurred to you that the reason we always block your accounts is that you make the same edits with every account? If those edits had consensus, you wouldn't need so many accounts to make them- people would agree with you the first time you explained them. Since they don't have consensus, they won't stay in the encyclopedia no matter how many accounts you use. You could continue wasting hours, weeks, years of your life, and in the end, your desired edits still won't be there- isn't that sort of a waste of time? Think of what you could have accomplished with the time you've spend on your various accounts. You could have learned to play the guitar pretty well, or read all of the works of James Joyce, or fallen in love. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you believe you are communicating with but I have had few if any edits reverted and you would have seen this had you bothered to check. Your attitude in this does you no justice as does your flippant remarks. How either of you ever became administrators I will never know. Maybe I should refer this matter above your heads since you have no intention of resolving this issue contrary to Wikipedia rules and policy. --Blue Magenta (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Daniel Case: Just what exactly would you suggest I do in order to resolve this issue given your pathetic attempt at resolution? There again, what else would you expect from a couple of yanks? --Blue Magenta (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, start being civil, for one thing. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 6 April 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).

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

Request reason:

I wish an administrator with the ability to exercise independent judgement to review this unblock request. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my edits and few if any have ever been reverted contrary to what FisherQueen states. There is no factual basis for making such comments. There are no attempts to push any point of view. The nasty personal remarks and condescending behaviour of certain administrators beggars belief. Maybe it is time an administrator with some experience and the ability to look at the big picture got involved in this.

Decline reason:

Again, your unblock request does not discuss the reason for your block. That must be addressed before any unblock request will be considered. TN X Man 16:42, 6 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

So, what do you want me to say then as I haven't done anything contrary to the rules and mores to the point you know it? I don't believe you could unblock it even if you wanted to, now that's funny!

Decline reason:

I am revoking your talk page access since you continue to post this frivolous insulting requests. Since you wish to "go over our heads" that will now be your only option. You can email the ban appeals subcommittee if you wish to appeal this further. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 6 April 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.