User talk:Pioneercourthouse

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Walor 05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the comments on Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square. Please, please, please read them. --Makaristos 19:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Makaristos 19:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Pioneer Courthouse Square, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Makaristos 19:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will recieve. The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Makaristos 21:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Makaristos 21:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. --Makaristos 21:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Pioneer Courthouse Square for this issue to be dealt with. --Makaristos 21:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've accepted the request for mediation, and even though the page is protected, stability would be better in the long run. Please visit Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Pioneer Courthouse Square and state what you'd like to see happen to the page, I'll contact the other editors and hopefully the protection can be released in a stable version. Thanks! ST47Talk 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Pioneercourthouse

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).

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

Request reason:

I have thought long and hard about this situation and I willing to reform myself and no longer be a burden on Wikipedia. I will only make constructive edits. However, please unblock me immediately and I will reform myself. Thank you very kindly.

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and as such you need to address those issues on your main accounts talk page before you will be unblocked. — Tiptoety ^talk 02:10, 13 October 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.

Question for Tiptoety I am confused, I thought this was the main account's talk page. This is the one I'm aware of, anyway. Was Pioneercourthouse using a different account before this one? If so, what was it? -Pete (talk) 23:16, 16 October 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).

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

Request reason:

This is my main account and I am now addressing the issue. I am willing to be a constructive member on Wikipedia so please allow this. You are hereby warned that this is your FINAL chance to do the right thing...

Decline reason:

This is inappropriate language for an unblock request, not to mention that it is also highly inappropriate to use such threatening type of language anywhere on Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 03:02, 13 October 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.

For the record: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pioneercourthouse -- Avi (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]