User talk:Ooaoaoao

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).

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

Request reason:

Not a sock, have not disrupted the wiki since i have been using it Ooaoaoao (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed abuser of multiple accounts. only (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2014 (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.

In case you're still here - see WP:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ctway/Archive. CheckUser data is treated as infallible, as there are only very few, rare cases in which it fails (if you really are telling the truth, there are ways to appeal, but I doubt it). I understand that you're trying to help, and that you haven't really been outwardly disruptive. But, Wikipedia has a couple important rules, if you will. One of these that you've broken include using reliable sources in articles for verifiability - failing to do so while creating lots of articles is considered disruption in itself. Another is a general one account per person rule (outlined in the first link above), which only has certain exceptions that you don't meet, and blocks apply to the person, not the account. If you had not made so many accounts, you probably wouldn't be indefinitely blocked. I'm sorry that it's come to this, as many of the articles you create are rather interesting (if not up to the general Wikipedia standard), but rules are rules, and you've broken them. Ansh6 6 6 01:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fusil automático Bogotá

The article Fusil automático Bogotá has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A homemade weapon with little-to-no notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rezin (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sterling S11

The article Sterling S11 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One-off prototype with little-to-no notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rezin (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]