User talk:Promontorylink

Welcome!

Hello, Promontorylink, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jokestress (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Revere

I wanted to thank you in particular for catching the typo at Paul Revere! We are very glad to have you here. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Jokestress (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Yeah sure, you're welcome. Thanks to you.Promontorylink (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Your recent editing history at Christianity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Saddhiyama (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Ghostprotocol888 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:01, 27 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

This account is not a sock puppet and was not created to violate Wikipedia policy.Promontorylink (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nice try. It's incredibly obvious who you are; if you want an unblock, go to your main account and request it there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:26, 27 April 2012 (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.

You started editing as soon as Ghost was blocked and jumped right into edit-warring on the same page he edit-warred on, making edits identical in character to his. This unblock request is not credible. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:27, 27 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

This account is not a sock puppet and was not created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Promontorylink (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Evading blocks and using the same account to edit the same article(s) is illegitimate. This block is valid, and necessary to protect the project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

This account is not a sock puppet and was not created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. I have not evaded a block; if you think that I have, then please submit evidence. Promontorylink (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is clear that this account has been used to evade a block on another account. However, even if that were not so, your editing has been disruptive, contentious, and belligerent, and there are more than enough reasons to keep you blocked. Since repeatedly posting essentially the same unblock request is a waste of our time, your talk page access will be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2012 (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.