BlueShrek

Archives
Archive 1

Guess I should tell you

A checkuser request has been filed about you, and I figured I should probably inform you of its presence, as it wouldn't be right to have something like that behind someone's back. There you go. Lychosis ^T/C 05:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Spider-Man: Friend or Foe. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. I have also warned User:Sesshomaru, whom you appear to be engaged in the edit war with. Bmg916^Speak 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Spider-Man: Friend or Foe. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:34, 18 July 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I only violated it because another editor was vandalising the page. They didnt provide a valid source and then the guy that got me blocked who btw has been harrassing me now for 24 hours and reverting all of my edits, came by and took his side,

Decline reason:

False accusations of vandalism coupled with conspiracy theories aren't exactly compelling reasons to unblock you. — Kafziel ^Talk 19:50, 18 July 2007 (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.

Re: Please

How do you explain this report: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wrestlinglover420? Lord Sesshomaru

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been falsely accussed of sock puppetry. Nobody had provided any kind of valid proof. Sesshamuro has had a personal vendetta against me for no real reason and I really dont see how this block is far. Im begging a admin to unblock me. I have done no wrong here im just trying to edit wikipedia to the best of my abilities. Even now the constructive edits I have made the pages are being erased by sess because he thinks hes won because im blocked.

Decline reason:

Unless you can provide a decent explanation for why you've been editing from the same IP address(es) as a currently blocked user, I don't think it's likely you'll be unblocked at this time. Sorry. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2007 (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.

In case someone does decide to unblock you, I thought I should point out that there is nowhere on Wikipedia that says articles should not include "spoilers". What you call a spoiler, we call information. There's a pretty simple solution: If you don't want to know how a TV show turns out, don't look it up in an encyclopedia.

Sesshomaru was correct to replace the content you removed. Kafziel ^Talk 19:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually no he was not in the WWE articles they arent allowed to include spoilers before the company announces and its the same way for TNA. Plus he removed my information on dc countdown and on spiderman friend or foe. The consensus on wrestling according to the product is unless its on tv or on their website it shouldnt go in.BlueShrek 19:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If it can be sourced, it's in. Consensus of some editors in the WWE area doesn't overrule Wikipedia policy. Kafziel ^Talk 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me say this, BlueShrek, there is nothing supporting your consensus claims at Talk:Spider-Man: Friend or Foe. All I see on that discussion page is users providing useful and verified references to console releases (which I've then placed for the article) and there is exclusive trolling there by TheManWhoLaughs. How strange that you happen to be a possible puppet of this user. Does that not raise doubt? Lord Sesshomaru

I cant help it that he "trolled" there. I only made valid edits. The reason why I kept removing it is because on the official site it doesnt have the platforms. Sess for someone reason you have taken it upon yourself to make a one man crusade to get me blocked and really for no reason. All I did was i asked you to help me create a archive and then you started calling me a troll and reverting all my edits.BlueShrek 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of TheManWhoLaughs. You may appeal this block, but the findings of your CheckUser case are conclusive enough for me. Kafziel ^Talk 18:48, 19 July 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The Ips arent the same they are kind of similar which i cant explain because i dont know much about ips. However given that their is no proof of sock puppetry here only a small possibilty i dont see how im still blocked. All I want to do is make constructive edits to wikipedia and this whole thing is crazy. If I dont get unblocked this time then I guess im not gonna get to because someone doesnt like me.

Decline reason:

Sharing a number of dynamic IPs doesn't indicate a "small possibility", it indicates a strong likelihood, and other factors such as shared interests and behavior prove it well enough to me. — Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:21, 21 July 2007 (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.