Welcome!Edit

Hello, Stellas4lunch! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking   if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Heya!Edit

Quick "thank you!" from myself and the rest of the English law team* for your additions to the Obscene Publications Act article; much appreciated :). I hope you decide to stay around; if you've got any questions, queries or quibbles, feel free to drop a note on my talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC) *nobody

May 2011Edit

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Muslims Against Crusades, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

DItto with the EDL article, onbe mention in a regional newspaper (and not on their web site) does not make the material notable--Snowded TALK 14:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC) I've opened up a section on the talk page - make the case there if you want to pursue this --Snowded TALK 14:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

AN/IEdit

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for hoaxing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fences&Windows 21:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Stellas4lunch (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I am appealing this block because I very strongly contest that any material I added was a hoax or in any way untrue. I believe that the large scale destruction of painstakingly referenced and documented encyclopaedic edits, including R v Brownhouse which was reviewed and rated a C-class article, based on circumstantial evidence (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for details) amounts to one of the most blatant acts of vandalism I have ever come across on this brilliant encyclopaedia. Notwithstanding the circumstantial and tendentious nature of the so-called evidence against me (the majority of which has been whipped up by the sock puppets Ghmyrtle (talk) and Snowded (talk), if any edits I did make violated Wikipedia policy then I would be this encyclopaedia's supplicant, genuinely tearful and would be prepared to give any aggrieved editor some Stellas for Luncheon Stellas4lunch (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

  Confirmed by CheckUser as to abusing multiple accounts; this account is one of many sock puppet accounts. –MuZemike 23:08, 19 May 2011 (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.

An explanationEdit

 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Stellas4lunch (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I would like to apologise by saying that the outrageous hoaxing at St John's Jerusalem was totally unacceptable, degrading of the encyclopaedia and in wanton violation of Wikipedia policy. I entirely regret it. Secondly, I am prepared to accept that I have engaged in sock puppetry to an appalling extent, and while this must be put in the context of Snowded, Ghmyrtle, and GoodDay's provocations, it cannot be justified under any circumstances. I am also prepared to take responsibility for some pretty outrageous trolling and provocation of other editors. I am genuinely sorry for this serious lapse in judgement. I am not asking for a reprieve, and fully accept that I should be punished accordingly and severely. What I am, however, saying, is that perhaps if there were a light at the end of the tunnel, rather than a permanent ban, and a chance of rehabilitation into the community, I would be eternally grateful. I repeat my earlier offer to purchase any aggrieved editor whatsoever some stellas for luncheon in great quantities. Once again, I am this encyclopaedia's supplicant. Stellas4lunch (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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. Serial sockpuppets are pretty low. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:33, 24 May 2011 (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.

Clarification of explanationEdit

 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Stellas4lunch (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I think my most recent explanation did demonstrate that I have understood the reasons why I have been blocked. Perhaps, I could have been fuller. I did make some good faith and legitimate edits to Wikipedia in addition to what I now accept was unacceptable, and desire little more than to be able to make edits for the benefit of the encyclopaedia once again, now fully aware that my previous strategies of sock puppetry, trolling and hoaxing are and were unacceptable and will always be discovered. I can solemnly declare that I will not in any way further damage Wikipedia, troll other editors or even dream of expanding my now-destroyed empire of ingenious puppets. As a token of the sincerity of my humble apology, I am now prepared to formally admit that both Diegothesuperdog (talk) andBobadillaman(talk) were and continue to be sock puppets under my control. I wish fervently to be able to return to good faith editing and improvement of this brilliant encyclopaedia for the public benefit, after a lengthy period of retributive banning. I repeat that I am this encyclopaedia's supplicant and will buy any aggrieved editor (other than Snowded) plenty of stellas or 1664s for luncheon, or indeed furnish them with some cans in the early morning. Stellas4lunch (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Request includes a blatant personal attack against another editor.


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.

Further clarificationEdit

 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Stellas4lunch (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Sorry about that blatant personal attack on my good friend Dave, who knows there is a cold pint of stella waiting for him in Wikipedia heaven, not that I am compassing his demise. I did it out of habit rather than a deliberate intention to insult. Previous remarks notwithstanding. Stellas4lunch (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Since this is the fourth unblock request, your block has now been fully and fairly reviewed. Since no unblock is likely, you no longer require access to this talk page. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:40, 24 May 2011 (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.