John Fuzukaka

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Tom Bates, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Tom Bates was changed by John Fuzukaka (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2008-08-07T01:54:47+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Tom Bates. Thanks. Hmrox (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Tom Bates. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your categorizing of Patrick T. McHenry‎, Herb Kohl, and Barbara Mikulski

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to David Dreier, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Then please provide citations for the "documented proof" for these claims. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:30, 7 August 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Decline reason:

No reason for unblock offered, but plenty of evidence of inappropriate editing in the contribution history. This edit, for example, is a good reason to block. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:49, 10 August 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.