Nanie Dinsay Steyn

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2012 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

reason: I was blocked by some unknown individual

Decline reason:

You were blocked by User:JohnCD for the reason stated above. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:55, 30 July 2012 (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 blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Nanie Dinsay Steyn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

99.111.228.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "DrOlivier". The reason given for DrOlivier's block is: "Advertising".

• Blocking administrator: JohnCD (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked by some unknown individual

Decline reason:

Procedural; does not address the block. See also my comments and those of the blocking admin, below. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:11, 30 July 2012 (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.

• Fixed template. Thine Antique Pen 14:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: you were not blocked by "some unknown individual": my block notice was signed with my username. It also gave the reasons for the block, and unblock requests that do not address those are unlikely to be accepted. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• As John indicates, you were blocked because your edits seemed to be promotional. That is to say, you did not edit the article on Rizal High School with an eye to improvement, but rather to promote the school (as with this edit, which did nothing more than tell readers to "Follow us on Facebook"). This is not permitted, and you were correctly blocked as a result. If you can show that you plan to edit in a neutral tone and on topics that do not involve your high school, then an admin may unblock you. Repeatedly posting identical unblock requests that disregard the notices appearing on this very page? That's not going to be very effective. Please read our policies, including our policy on Conflict of Interest and our guide to appealing blocks before you post another unblock request. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• I have reverted another unblock request with the same pointless message. I feel this account should not be unblocked as it is a sockpuppet (WP:SOCK) of User:DrOlivier. See User talk:DrOlivier where there is a reference to an article by the name of this user, and the block request there uses the same 'unknown individual. thing. The DrOlivier account was also blocked for promotional editing. Peridon (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

After four declined unblock requests and a final expletive, it is clear that no constructive use is being made of this talk page. I have therefore revoked your ability to edit it. Any unblock request should be made via the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)