User talk:Mohasik

Speedy deletion declined: Love Jihad

Hello Mohasik, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Love Jihad, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It is an alleged activity not a hoax. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Tikiwont (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for sock puppetry or meat puppetry. You reinserted the same deletion request today that yesterday had been decline to User:Asik5678.[1] If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tikiwont (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Office network

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

94.58.106.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

this is a office network, there may be many user in my office, so offen you are blocking ip

Blocking administrator: not provided.

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

{{adminhelp}}

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).

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

Request reason:

i am using office network

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 5 October 2010 (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.

Blocking admins' comment: I had fixed your unblock requests as they were unfortunately invisible due to an error of mine with the template. As pointed out above neither of the two request addresses the reason for blocking. Actually I have to note that also User:Asik5678 used the autoblock template incorrectly.... Rather it seems to me that you have been evading the block with the IP you mention above[2], also self-identifying as 94.57.172.139 [3] and possibly other IPs active at Hindu jihad and Love Jihad. I'll also block the two obvious IPs, with the hidden unblock requests and your article being at AfD the reason for not proposing an extension of the original block. But any further intentional block evasion will not only result in the Ips being blocked but result in extension of your block at User:Asik5678as well. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

request for unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

the block is no longer necessary because i will not continue to cause damage or disruption. i am new to wiki, i don't no the correct procedure. sorry --Mohasik (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block. Sandstein 06:07, 6 October 2010 (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.

Let me add that the account User:Asik5678 is blocked for two weeks only, that is till October 16. So either you come up with a more convincing unblock rationale, preferably at User talk:Asik5678, or you will have to wait for that block to expire to prove that you can contribute constructively without disruption. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]