User talk:Cheszmastre

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).

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

Request reason:

no evidence of sockpuppetry+checkuser is still pending: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/His_excellency

Decline reason:

Not even willing to examine this case unless your unblock request includes a specific statement that you are not the banned vandal, His excellency (talk · contribs). If you are not, please resubmit your unblock request. — Yamla 00:15, 15 August 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.

checkuser confirms i am not his excellence http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/His_excellency}}

No, I'm afraid it doesn't.Proabivouac 01:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't confirm that I am his excellency, and I am very much offended that you are accusing me of sockpuppeting without discussing it with me first.--Cheszmastre 01:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTALLOFUSARESTUPID. We gave you a chance with User:Ezag - did you catch that, it's right there in the CU discussion - we gave you a chance because you were behaving reasonably - and you blew it.Proabivouac 01:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So even though the checkuser cleared me, you still think that I am His Excellency? I think it is you who isn't behaving reasonably. Also please go see if Ali Sina redirects to FFI.--Cheszmastre 01:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't; that's why I didn't revert you again. Include an edit summary instead of just reverting; that way I won't necessarily (no promises, though) roll back all your edits on sight.Proabivouac 01:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, Tom harrison rolled you back. Thank you for your help; I've restored your change.[1]Proabivouac 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you. In the meantime, can you also remove that vandalism from the Andy Rooney page, thanks.--Cheszmastre 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had to revert again on that last one because it was another sock who destroyed the redirect! Who'd have guessed?

~~Now I'll look at Andy Rooney.~~ Done.

So, why didn't you play it cool with Ezag or Dashes? You're welcome to e-mail me; I'd be curious to learn your story.Proabivouac 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who ezag or Dashes are. Care to explain?--Cheszmastre 01:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honest conversations are welcome; game-playing is not. Bye.Proabivouac 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I am being as honest as I can. You are accusing me of being a sockpuppet without a shred of evidence.--Cheszmastre 02:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's certainly evidence now. Nice impression, though (supposing he didn't hand you his password mid-stream.)Proabivouac 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? Where is the evidence? I don't know what "impression" you're talking about. Also why are you still here? I thought you said bye.--Cheszmastre 03:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what proof do you have that I sent you an email?--Cheszmastre 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll just have to take my word for it.

Why are you working with His excellency?Proabivouac 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're working together to destroy wikipedia.

Oh and by the way, good luck on your adminship. It's gonna be fucked over good.--Cheszmastre 04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]