User talk:Runteldat

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Rollosmokes (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

This user is banned from editing the English Wikipedia. Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking.
(block log · contributions)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wpixcw11-1.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wpixcw11-1.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newark vs. New York

You may very well be right. HOWEVER--you give no source for your edits. Whereas, my edit was SOURCED. If you find a better, WP:VER source that says Newark, go right ahead and add it. However, I'm wondering what POSSIBLE source could be more authoratative than the stations' OWN WEBSITE. If you find one, though, go right ahead. Gladys J Cortez 07:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please add that source to the article--when all the branding says "New York" there's good reason to verify in the article that there is an official source that says "Newark". Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 13:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted

Several of your previous edits have been reverted as this and other editors are concerned that you may be a sockpuppet for blocked editor Rollosmokes and also your edits were not necessary. It would be helpful for you to address the sockpuppetry concerns before continuing to edit. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 15, 2008 @ 10:13

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wpix-newlogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wpix-newlogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppetry, as per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Runteldat. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am a new user who has been unfairly accused as a sockpuppet. Any editing of articles similar to those edited by the banned user in question has been purely conincidental. I have not engaged in any edit wars with any users, and have followed all rules in regards to editing.

Decline reason:

Regardless of how many accounts you create to circumvent your block, the end result will be the same. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:25, 17 November 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.

Please don't contact me by e-mail for unblocking requests, that won't change anything. Thank you. --Gutza ^{T T+} 10:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page protected

That last diff of yours, no matter how angry you are, was completely over-the-top. I've full-protected the page; if you need to plead your case, you'll need to do it to ArbCom, via e-mail. GJC 08:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]