User talk:Danuman Has

I have blocked this account indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet. --Ars Scriptor 14:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

does not qualify for speedy deletion per:

Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMA (talk • contribs)

However, I'll happily lock the page. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:05, 5 December 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

one edit is simply not disruptive, I have every right to have an alternate account, have put a notification on my primary user page, and was about to put one one this user page. Danuman Has 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is clear that this is a sockpuppet of Hanuman Das. Yes, you may have alternative accounts, but this one is used solely to make a point based on comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse made by Hanuman Das at the diff listed below.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 19:39, 5 December 2006 (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.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse&diff=next&oldid=92202488

RFCs aren't binding nor do they set policy. -- Drini 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I see that account being used in a WP:POINT way, not to do actual work. -- Drini 19:41, 5 December 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

It was used once, made intentionally identifiable, and does not deserve blocking nor harassment of my primary user with tagging. This alternate account has committed neither "abuse, libel, or ban evasion" as the tag inaccurately states. Please remove the tag from User:Hanuman Das and feel free to delete this account's talk and user page and lock the account if you wish. Thanks. Also, please unblock the IP. I have a legitimate, unblocked account, and have committed no serious policy violation. It's too bad Ars Scriptor can't take a joke, but that's the extent of the matter.

Decline reason:

You appear to have changed your mind. Goodbye. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:05, 5 December 2006 (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.

Danuman Has 19:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]