User talk:Marcus Technical

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).

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

Request reason:

No, I have an innocent user page, so it is not spam, (well it wasn't spam before it just got deleted), can I be unblocked if I promise to stop spamming any more?

Decline reason:

There were other problems—serious problems that cannot be overlooked—with your conduct. Since you are not willing to engage with us in discussion, there is no evidence that the problems won't recur if you're unblocked now. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2015 (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.

Err, I'm having problems parsing this request. So was what you posted a spam or it wasn't? Max Semenik (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The revision that was deleted happened not to be spam; older revisions were copyvio spam. That's not the main issue; see below. Huon (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Huon (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I KNOW, READ THE APPEAL ON TOP. Marcus Technical (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal on top does not even come close to discussing the issues with your conduct. Huon (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only got blocked for spamming. I promise you I won't spam, so what can I say else? If you tell me what is wanted of me I will do it. The advertising campaign failed, I tried bit it failed. I got annoyed with the editors that were creating obstacles for me naturally, but now I won't spam again, I won't attack people either, that is a sure promise. Marcus Technical (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you were unblocked, how would you contribute constructively to Wikipedia in future? . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no obligation to answer anything to you. I address only the admins. Marcus Technical (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since your block was for harassment, it would be in your best interest to be civil and collaborative with all editors, whether they happen to be admins or not. —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked primarily for harassing other editors, though your blatant spam campaign was also an issue. There's nothing "natural" about your conduct here. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and I really shouldn't have to tell you that your conduct - including the comment immediately above - does not contribute to a collaborative environment. Should any admin think of unblocking this account, I'd advise them to take a look at deleted contributions in userspace, especially this one. All that's wrong with Marcus Technical's conduct in one neat package. Huon (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]