Jump to content

User talk:Proof of Case

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


August 2011

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nicki Minaj discography, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

August 2011

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nicki Minaj discography, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Nicki disco

[edit]

Just so you know, I had no problem with the US being first, it was adding bubbling under Hot 100 and calling "Check It Out" a single from Pink Friday, when consensus was reached that it wasn't, was why I reverted it. ℥nding·start 23:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over unsourced material

[edit]

When material is removed for lack of sourcing, you must add verifiable sources before restoring the material. You must add them. Not someone else. Not me. Not other editors. Not someday. You must add the sources, and you must do it before readding the material. See WP:BURDEN for details. Beyond that, your edit warring is getting extremely tireseome. Don't constantly readd material that other editors have removed.—Kww(talk) 14:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

I was recently blocked bt User: KWW for a sockpuppetry case and would like to defend myself against these claims. First off, I am not a sockpuppet. My blocking actually came after I had gotten into a disagreement with User: KWW over bubbling under chart positions. I attempted to investigate the matter by going to the contributions of KWW to see if the matter was discussed before. However, on his talk User talk:KWW, in reply to another user he stated that he just felt it and decided to block me. I would really like to be looked under consideration, which I am positive will show that I am not a sockpuppet. Also, I am not a threat yo wikipedia policy. When I first started, I engaged in edit waring, however, if you look on User talk: Ending-start, you will see that I have tried to solve our problem with talk page communication. I am still new to wikipedia, however with proper guidance, I am sure thatI can become a great member. Again, I am sorry if there is some confusion, but in no shape or form am I a sockpuppet.--Proof of Case (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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).

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

Request reason:

I was recently blocked bt User: KWW for a sockpuppetry case and would like to defend myself against these claims. First off, I am not a sockpuppet. My blocking actually came after I had gotten into a disagreement with User: KWW over bubbling under chart positions. I attempted to investigate the matter by going to the contributions of KWW to see if the matter was discussed before. However, on his talk User talk:KWW, in reply to another user he stated that he just felt it and decided to block me. I would really like to be looked under consideration, which I am positive will show that I am not a sockpuppet. Also, I am not a threat yo wikipedia policy. When I first started, I engaged in edit waring, however, if you look on User talk: Ending-start, you will see that I have tried to solve our problem with talk page communication. I am still new to wikipedia, however with proper guidance, I am sure thatI can become a great member. Again, I am sorry if there is some confusion, but in no shape or form am I a sockpuppet. I resubmitted this as it seems as if my request wasnt looked at as the decline reason was that a check user confirmed me. Thanx, i guess --Proof of Case (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppets of banned users are not unblocked. Unblock requests must be submitted to ArbCom. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:32, 11 August 2011 (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.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proof_of_Case&oldid=1061064128"