Steadyonplease

This page is currently protected from editing to prevent Steadyonplease (talk · contribs · block log · arb · SPI^confirmed_suspected) from using it to make disruptive edits, such as abusing the {{unblock}} template.
If you cannot edit this user talk page and you need to make a change or leave a message, you can request an edit, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

February 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Kim Fox has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Kim Fox was changed by Steadyonplease (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.924686 on 2014-02-05T19:35:46+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Phil Mitchell with this edit, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Josh3580_talk/hist 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dexter Hartman, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tentinator 19:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. 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. Favonian (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

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).

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

Request reason:

Can I have another chance? Steadyonplease (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

I don't see why, since you're also attempting to edit as The destructor of articles, Thisismyusername96, Avederson, and Bitbopbo. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:51, 10 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Has there been any investigation into this sock puppetry? I don't see any investigation open so I don't see how this has come about.

Decline reason:

Well, I just found and blocked four more of your accounts. —DoRD (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Actually this is a sock puppet of drwho16, so it is not guilty of sockpuppeting, as it is a sock puppet.

Decline reason:

All the more reason it still should be blocked. In fact, since this was your third request that basically just seems to be playing with us, ~~I will be revoking your talk page access so you won't be able to waste our time anymore~~. It seems that was done almost a month ago, and you made this request with yet another sock. Now you've really pissed us off. I'm full-protecting this page. If you want to waste anyone else's time, you'll have to do it through OTRS, without the audience you so transparently crave. G'bye. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2014 (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.

Add topic