User talk:Trusciante

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).

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

Request reason:

this ban is absurd because I never did edit in this site but I am a simply long time observer of several articles and now I stay in Italy but I am from Macedonia. This is harrasment against user:Sir Floyd: see section -Please Stop Putting Your Political Propaganda On My Talk Page- here. DIREKTOR is in never ending edit multi-wars against a lot of other editors from different nations and I agree this appeal of user:Imbris.Trusciante (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please remember to put your reasons in the template, not outside. I am declining because this block is based on checkuser evidence, and only another checkuser can review it. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

first of all I don't understand your controls because checkuser is not evidence but none did this control about me.--Trusciante (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wrong. Checkuser evidence is absolutely reliable. If you feel you deserve to be unblocked, e-mail the blocking admin. No other admin is going to unblock you. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:30, 9 October 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

now my IP is 87.1.57.57 but IP of PIO is 151.67 and other four numbers: see here; IPs are too much differents and I never did edit and never I stopped DIREKTOR's POV action in many articles: but you want joke me? Are you Extrasensory perception or special guys? But what's happened in this site: it's free or top secret? If you will unblock me, I have no idea of editing in articles but only test authority of this project and now I am negative surprised very much.--Trusciante (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a decline or accept 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.