User talk:Lil Miss Angelic

September 2011

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Skyscraper (song). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kobe Bryant‎‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Bryant

We're not "Kobe haters". The way the lead is presently structured, it is necessary to mention the losses; otherwise, the narrative won't make any sense. Your edits just make things vague and confusing. And the lead to Magic Johnson's article does, at least, imply that he lost several Finals series. Zagalejo^^^ 07:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet?

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).

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

Request reason:

Obviously you morons made a mistake. First of all this is my only account. I don't even edit from my IP address, so where you came up with this shit is beyond me. However I'm sure there's some way to prove I'm not a sock puppet so I'll leave that to the idiots who blocked me. I guess if you don't like my edits you had to find a way to stop me from editing. However a suspected sock puppet? So that means you think I'm one but your not sure. Well get a clue because I'm not. Oh and I am NOT requesting, I DEMAND you un block me because I am not and let me repeat I AM NOT A SOCK PUPPET. I'll expect an apology from you idiot's to go with my un blocking. Thank you very much-Lil Miss Angelic (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See this link for the rationale behind the block. Also declining the unblock request on the basis of WP:NPA - being annoyed about a block is understandable, but writing a pure personal attack as an unblock request is simply not done. Try again when you cooled down a bit. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:40, 22 November 2011 (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.

I am more than annoyed by the block I am insulted. I take the time to explain every edit and to improve articles. And what you found is nothing. With your rationality (I did read the so called evidence) everyone who edits on those pages with the same view is a sock puppet. I also took the time to read about this guy. Now if you really believe that he has made all those accounts your kidding yourself. However I apologize if I offended you. But I am not a sock puppet. If your gonna block me for being rude or for personal attacks then go ahead but I am NOT a sock puppet. Thank you-Lil Miss Angelic (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

As I explained in the paragraph before I am not a sock puppet. Therefore my block is unjust and should be lifted. However I understand if you need to block me for personal attacks or being rude. Even if the block is indefinite. I just don't want to be falsely blocked as a sock puppet. Thank you.-Lil Miss Angelic (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, doesn't wash—the sockpuppetry is pretty clear here. If you want to be unblocked, you need to make an unblock request on your main account, and one that addresses rather than denies your behavior. We're not fools, we know what a duck looks like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:32, 30 November 2011 (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.