Lboken

July 2013

Hello, I'm GSK. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Sims 3, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 18:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Lboken. You have new messages at Lboken's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

there is a probleme you deleted my addition here a good proof that its real.

http://www.amazon.fr/The-Sims-starter-bundle-anglais/dp/B00COK9VD6/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1373270555&sr=8-2-fkmr1&keywords=the+sims+3+starter+pack explaine me why me i have to proof what say and others didnt why my addition had to have a citation or refference when its in store and yet other like univercity or supernatural they doesnt have to have one ?????? that is just wrong to delete others work just cause you dont want some one to post something cause you didn thave the proof like others did

so basicaly waht you says is if you arent a member of my kliq you have no right to post new information on the wikipedia website. fine i wont edit any more what the use even when i show you proff you refuse them you just remove the one who arent in your kliq post so that only you and your friends can help wikipedia wish make even more unreliable the wikipedia since only a few can add to it even with source and proof.

Talkback

Hello, Lboken. You have new messages at GSK's talk page.
Message added 15:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GSK ● ✉ ✓ 15:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:GSK, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 02:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Sims 3

You were told store sites like Amazon were not reliable sources, and you chose to ignore it, and on top of that, you felt it was necessary to harass me. I and at least one other editor have tried to explain policy to you, but you would rather ignore it and claim there's a "kliq." I have no sympathy for someone who is unwilling to learn. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 03:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try one more time. Everything on Wikipedia must be sourced to reliable, independent sources: see WP:IRS or WP:SOURCES for more info there. Amazon.com is not a reliable source, because pretty much anyone can sell something there. Now, in one of your posts you mentioned [1], which is a slightly better source in this case. So, here's my suggestion: take a look at the referencing guide for beginners, and edit the article again, this time just using the one source.

A few things, though. Vandalism has a very narrow definition on Wikipedia, and what GSK and I were doing does not constitute vandalism. Second, there is no "kliq" of editors running the The Sims 3 page. Before today, I had not edited the Sims 3 page, nor had I ever edited the same page as GSK. I hope my advice helps, and I look forward to seeing you contribute positively to Wikipedia. Howicus (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:56, 9 July 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

false accusation this is not for trolling disruptive editing i was adding pertinent things ( a starter pack that wasnt added and kept deleted for false reason, also when you banned me i was messaging a reply to gsk to explain a few things and make it good since he started to act proplerly instead of removing a non kliq member post. so he was doing the right things. so no i do not vadalising anythings, and im not harassing any one im explaining things to them but cause they wanted kliq only to post they reported me as a trouble maker even if i wasnt a trouble makers some user can post with out proof what so ever, and me i had to proove it and even when proven i got my post deleted serveral time and now im the one called a vadalist???? and being caleld a troll do you know that its not good for a mod to instuld people that try to help the website in the first place? im not a troll so remove your block/bann that isnt even deserved in the first place. and appologise for your insult that you just did to me. Lboken (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

you are beyond reasonable doubt guilty of harassment. I could perhaps excuse the accusation of trolling as being down to your limited command of the English language. But the disruptive harassment is obvious, and you will need to accept and address this point to be unblocked. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:19, 9 July 2013 (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 another admin wants to unblock you, that's fine with me, however I have a hard time accepting your sincerity with your edits. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)