Whimanam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Whimanam (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)My account is not a vandalism-ony account. The account was created to create a new page Stoddard and Elliott Halls (Miami University) and because of this does not fall under the guidelines for a vandalism-only account. It is clear that I have also positively contributed to Wikipedia and should not be under an indefinite block.
Decline reason:
You made one useful contribution, disappeared for many months, and then the account became active again to commit only vandalism. The evidence suggests that either someone different is using this account, or your character has changed, and you have gone from being a useful person to a vandal. Either way, the evidence does not support an unblock of this account, as we do not need any more vandalism, and it seems that the days of useful edits coming from this account are long past. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:06, 12 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- You vandalized the Tosh.0 and Pornography pages, even though there was a clear warning on the Tosh.0 page at the top as an editnotice, stating that anyone who vandalizes the article may be blocked. This is due to the rampant vandalism stemming from his "go vandalize Wikipedia" episode. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Whimanam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My account is not a vandalism-ony account. The account was created to create a new page Stoddard and Elliott Halls (Miami University) and because of this does not fall under the guidelines for a vandalism-only account. It is clear that I have also positively contributed to Wikipedia and should not be under an indefinite block. This account was not created for vandalism and has been used for more than vandalism and because of this it does not qualify to be in the category of a vandalms-only account with an indefinite block. I am not denying that vandalism has been done I am saying there has also been positive done and changing 3 words should not be the cause of an indefinite block when there is evidence of positive contributions.
Decline reason:
This unblock request does not address the reason for your block. This is what we call wikilawyering. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:41, 13 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Whimanam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My account is not a vandalism-ony account. The account was created to create a new page Stoddard and Elliott Halls (Miami University) and because of this does not fall under the guidelines for a vandalism-only account. It is clear that I have also positively contributed to Wikipedia and should not be under an indefinite block. This account was not created for vandalism and has been used for more than vandalism and because of this it does not qualify to be in the category of a vandalms-only account with an indefinite block. I am not denying that vandalism has been done I am saying there has also been positive done and changing 3 words should not be the cause of an indefinite block when there is evidence of positive contributions. I admit to the vandalism and should be blocked I just find it unjust that my account is blocked forever when i have done positive changes and only have one strike against me.
Decline reason:
Eagles247 was well within his rights to block you. How about apologizing for what you did and perhaps suggesting some more useful edits you intend to make once unblocked, instead of complaining that you shouldn't have been blocked? Request to unblock denied. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:29, 13 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- It may be helpful for you if you don't have the same unblock request as the previous one that was declined. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Remember that we don't so much care about what you have done in the past, but about what you seem likely to do in the future. Right now, since you seem to think it's okay to vandalize as long as you make at least one useful contribution, no one is able to develop much confidence that you won't vandalize in the future. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)