Charlie Chorks

Tiptoety ^talk 03:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

fuck off!

Decline reason:

Further abuse of the unblock template will result in the edit-protection of this talk page. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

i won't do anything else wrong, i swear!

Decline reason:

If you actually want your block reviewed, request unblocking on your primary account and discuss what you've done wrong and how you would plan to edit constructively in the future. Given your lengthy history of sockpuppetry, though, it may be hard for some users to assume good faith. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Tiptoety UN-BAN ME I AM VERY SORRY HONESTLY TRUTHLY I AM SORRY AND I WILL NEVER DO WHAT I DID AGAIN PLEASE JUST GIVE ME ONE MORE CHANCE PLEASE, I SWEAR I WON'T VANDALISE ON MY PARENTS LIVES, SISTERS AND ALL MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND EVERYBODY ON WIKIPEDIA'S LIVES (Note: i can't use the sockmaster talk page as of it being protected):( THANK YOU Charlie Chorks

Decline reason:

Although swearing on other people's lives looks good on paper, it would be painfully ironic if I accepted and then dropped dead a few days later should you decide to vandalize. :P You might try taking a peek at {{2nd chance}} and possibly following the directions to help demonstrate your true intent to help instead of hurt. — slakr^\ talk / 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

I will allow another admin to decline, but I am not willing to unblock you. You have created tons of abusive accounts, stated multiple times that you have no intention of stopping and ever resorted to personal attacks upon myself and many other users. We have already gone through this once, where I assumed good faith and unblocked you and all you did was spit in my face and start all over again. And anyways, why do you think you talk page is protected? Tiptoety ^talk 20:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

There, i have familiarised myself withbasic rules, and improved an article; see below

Decline reason:

I just don't think we can trust you after your sockpuppetry, abuse, and lies. Maybe try again in 6 months. Mangojuice^talk 16:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

If unblocked i will; edit constructively, never perform vandalism edits, avoid vandalising the three revert rule, and be civil to others at all times. Charlie Chorks (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: A clear stipulation of being given a second chance is making significant and well researched contributions to an article. The changes you have made, as this diff shows, are superficial at best, and in many instances mean the article actually makes less sense than it did originally [1]. This is not through ignorance on your part of what is required to significantly improve an article of this nature. User:Gungadin gave you very sound advice the first time you were appealing an indef block [2] and you utilised very little of it then. I myself spent a significant amount of time giving you advice in steps to take in re-writing fictional character articles, both on your talk page [3] and my own [4]. I also directed you to read the guideline on writing about fiction. Your edits have never reflected that you have taken any of this advice on board, nor do they here. Other editors are not here to spoon-feed you every step of the way, and when you persist in causing constant trouble, detracting from everyone's efforts to improve the encylopedia in order to deal with you, the very least you could do is actually make a real attempt at contributing positively. Frickative 16:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If this user is a sockpuppet, why would we block this account instead of the primary one? We don't typically unblock sockpuppet accounts, do we? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

He's appealing on this talk page simply because the talk page of his main account is edit protected, due to abuse of the unblock request function some weeks ago. Frickative 16:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please, this time i really mean my promise, if im unblocked i promise i won't vandalise, if i do vandalise you can ban me until im old and bald and dead.

Decline reason:

Declined multiple times already. I'm protecting this page for 3 months, you may make another request after that. Mangojuice^talk 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

Article title

Charlie Chorks
220px Molly in 2007
Portrayed by	Vicky Binns
Duration	2005-
First appearance	5 September 2005
In-universe information Occupation Employee, D&S Corner Shop Father Diggory Compton Aunts Pam Hobsworth

Molly Compton is a fictional character in the British soap opera Coronation Street. The character first appeared on-screen in 2005, and has since been played by actress Vicky Binns. The character is the daughter of baker Diggory Compton, who left the show in 2006, Molly is an outgoing woman who is engaged to Tyrone Dobbs and works for Dev Alahan.

Storylines

The character is the daughter of former local baker, Diggory Compton. In a storyline that revealed when she first began visiting Coronation Street, that she was a victim of bullying at school, with one of the bullies being Fiz Brown, a Coronation Street resident. Though they later settled their differences and have now become good friends.

The character used to work for Kirk Sutherland whom she once pretended to have affections for, as her idea of revenge for the bullying she endured from Fiz during her school days. After briefly working in her father's shop and at Kirk's kennels, Molly now works for Dev Alahan at D&S Alahans Corner shop. Molly is currently engaged to Tyrone Dobbs, with whom she lives with and their lodger, Jack Duckworth, and previously his wife, Vera, before Vera died naturally in January 2008, just before Jack and Vera planned to move to Blackpool. Vera's death later left, Tyrone, Molly and Jack devastated.

Tyrone and Molly then bought the Duckworths' house and still keep Jack as lodger Jack, despite Vera's death.

In April 2008, Digital Spy reported that Molly's auntie "Pam Hobsworth" would be coming to The Street in Summer 2008.

In episodes broadcasted in May 2008, the character decided to make her mark on the Duckworths' house by removing the stone cladding that Vera had got put on the front of the house during the eighties. Jack agreed with this move but Tyrone was not happy as he saw the cladding as a memory of Vera. Eventually as the builders proceeded to remove the cladding they informed her that the job would be much more expensive as the cladding was ruining the brick work as it was being removed. The cheapest option was for the cladding to remain on the house.

In episodes broudcasted in July 2008, Jack advised Tyrone to propose to Molly. Tyrone unfortunately slipped up at several attempts. After Molly discovering this, she planned a surprise proposal to Tyrone and the two got engaged.

Tyrone later let Molly meet his mother, "Jackie" in an episode airing on 22 August 2008. And the two met in an episode airing on 24 August. Everything seemed fine, that was until Molly and Tyrone found out that Jackie was £1,000 in debt and needed the money to owe her ex-husband's friend Brian, much to Molly's despair as Tyrone agreed to help her. They used their wedding savings to pay him off, but now they have no money to afford her dream wedding dress, but Tyrone is working hard to obtain more money with help from Auntie Pam to afford to give Molly the wedding she wants.

External links

• Molly Compton at ITV soaps
• Molly Compton at What's on TV

Category:Coronation Street characters Category:Fictional bakers