User talk:Leon harrison

This is a test. Leon harrison (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:69.132.26.177. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Whatever the disagreement is between you two, keep it civil. There's no need for personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already reported the fool to ANI and waiting for a response. Clearly, the idiot on that ip is looking for trouble. Reverted 3 edits of mine from tonight and messing with this talk page. It isn't his/hers to poop on, anyhow. Leon harrison (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet allegations

This account distinctly appears to be a sockpuppet; looking at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:Hdayejr, there's an awful lot in common, here, and this account seems to be keenly familiar with Wikipedia for a newcomer. You can appeal this via the {{unblock}} template. I'll be posting to WP:AN/I for review in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:05, 15 May 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).

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

Request reason:

because I have no idea why you did and ip vandal is stalking me.

Decline reason:

Even if you were unblocked for the sockpuppet issue, you would then be reblocked for the personal attacks, as evidenced by your reply to my warning above. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 15 May 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.

There were no personal attacks, other than telling the little idiot to leave my page alone. Would you like people vandalizing your page?

Interesting you would take the word of a "hit and run" vandal over me. Check out his page, posting "never mind". Interesting. I think your block is unfair, to say the least. I'd like an independent review of the block, not from the 2 admins. involved.

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).

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

Request reason:

ALSO WOULD LIKE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, BUT I CAN'T SUBMIT A REQUEST WHEN YOU HAVE ME BLOCKED. If you clearly look at the garbage the 69 ip started with my talk page, you'll see that there is good evidence that the user was a hit and run troll/vandal. Clearly, he reverted his page to never mind after my block, so evidently, he has me confused with another user that he has a vendetta against. I didn't appreciate him messing up my talk page and reverting edits I made. I think I have the same rights to editing as anybody else. As far as your allegation of me being this Hdayejr user, it's so unreal, I actually laughed when I read that. I have no idea who you are talking about, and I really don't want to be in the middle of a war of idiocy with the 2 aforementioned fools. I will be emailing Arbcom, if all else fails, to let them know of this very unjust, unfair, block you imposed. You should investigate matters BEFORE blocking people. How would you feel if it was you? Leon harrison (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not going to be unblocked so long as you continue to toss accusations left and right. Personal attacks are not acceptable, even against people you feel are only here to vandalize. Don't feed the trolls and they will go away in search of better eating. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:17, 15 May 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.

Clarification: They are not accusations, they are facts. I am beginning to think the staff has it in for me also.

Would you care to provide some citiations for these facts of yours?— Dæ dαlus^T@lk / Improve 05:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.132.26.177&action=history Now, you could have clicked that yourself. Checks the diffs and you'll see. But I am thinking you just don't care to look at the evidence.

[1]

I don't think you understand. Please cite the specific diff that supports your accusation. The history has nothing bad in it, and the diff where he blanks the page to post nevermind has no bad implications either. Your claims are baseless.— Dæ dαlus^T@lk / Improve 09:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the history of this talk page, I cannot find the 'garbage' you refer to that the IP added to your talk page. All I see is a sockpuppet tag, which would have easily been removed had the checkuser found you to be innocent, that is of course, assuming that you were indeed, innocent. Why would you have anything to worry about? If someone tags me, I'll let it go through with the checkuser, and let the checkuser find it to be false. Again, please cite specific diffs that have actuall meaning.— Dæ dαlus^T@lk / Improve 09:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]