User talk:Brokendownchevroletsuburban

Regarding edits made during October 24 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. chaser - t 00:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameFAQs‎

In case you were not aware, the result of this discussion was speedy keep, because it is a featured article with no chance of being deleted. Please review the deletion process before nominating articles for deletion. Leebo ^T/C 20:30, 6 November 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Come on this is unfair ok I get a warning about the GameFAQs AfD but now I'm suddenly blocked without doing anything else?

Decline reason:

Once it becomes obvious that an account doesn't exist for any reason except disrupting the encyclopedia, there's no need to let that account continue to edit. I don't see any evidence that unblocking you would be likely to result in constructive contributions that would make the encyclopedia better. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:09, 7 November 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

That doesn't answer my question though. Why is it right that I get a warning but then get blocked without even making any further contributions?

Decline reason:

With your history of vandalism I'm suprised you weren't blocked sooner. Denied. — IrishGuy ^talk 01:12, 8 November 2007 (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.

The simple answer is that one user saw your AfD of GameFAQs and thought it deserved a warning, while a different user saw that AfD, reviewed your other edits, and made the decision that your continued edits would be more likely to harm the encyclopedia than to improve it. It isn't unusual for our edits to be reviewed by more than one person. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who gave the warning regarding the AfD of GameFAQs. I considered blocking at the time, but since there was little activity, I was going to wait to see the user's response. I feel blocking is appropriate though. Leebo ^T/C 22:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]