User talk:Give me more information

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on LeBron James. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. just some friendly advice, you have removed that stat 3 times, if you remove it again, you will have violated the three revert rule. I would hate to see you get blocked Jons63 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to LeBron James, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I reverted, because you have violated the 3RR, please take it to the talk page Jons63 (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2008 (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).

Give me more information (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocked for no valid reason. There is a claim that I'm some sockpuppet account of another user, though I am not. I don't know what exactly is expected to disprove such a thing. I don't know what evidence there would be to suggest a correlation to a sockpuppet anyways. This is the internet, after all, where there are millions of people...

Decline reason:

Not believable. Mango juice^talk 13:56, 20 February 2008 (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.

So, just to be clear, your claim is that you just showed up out of the blue and coincidentally started edit warring on all the same articles as the blocked user in question? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:15, 20 February 2008 (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).

Give me more information (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocked for no valid reason.

Decline reason:

Similar editing style, at least 5 very unique articles edited by you and him. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck — The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2008 (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.