Cedunited

Corronation Street

Hi. Please remember to add |color=#F0E68C when converting to infobox soap character. Try also changing image= with the new image1 and caption with caption1. Great job!!! Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I think {{Coronation Street}} is used only for current characters as a navigational template. That's why it wasn't present in many articles. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem then. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The color is ok on my screen. Just try reloading tour browser. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what's the reason to have List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters? They are already

1. List of past Coronation Street characters (2000-)
2. List of past Coronation Street characters (1990-1999)
3. List of past Coronation Street characters (1980-1989)
4. List of past Coronation Street characters (1970-1979)

I think we have to put the characters in the correct article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Coronation_Street_characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet of Dodgechris and wish to edit constructively, see here, post you're comments there as well regarding this situation

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dodgechris. —  Sandstein  15:35, 5 October 2008 (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.

Unblock (2nd)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Now that i have improved an article i wish to improve, per {{Second chance}} (see below), i hope you will understand that i need to be unblocked, if so, i will edit constructively, stick to one account, be civil to others and never engage in vandalism edits, nor will i add Spam to pages (P.S., i can't add this template to my primary account as of it being protected, with this being a Sock-puppet account)

Decline reason:

Given your repeated and egregious violations of our sockpuppetry policy, and your recent attacks on another user, I think you've wasted more than enough second chances for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2008 (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.

Unblock (3rd)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Don't you think my improvements to the article are good enough? My sockpuppetry, vandalism, personal attacks and harrasment have all finished, even if this request is declined, can you please at least answer me one question: Do you think that i will ever be unbanned?

Decline reason:

On the contrary, many of the violations are only a few days old, so there is little evidence that you have really ceased all of the disruption and sockpuppetry you have caused. It should be noted that people DO become unbanned/unblocked after situations identical to yours. When they have, though, they have demonstrated that they are willing to prove that they have changed by avoiding editing Wikipedia for an appropriate length of time, say 2-3 months. If you can avoid creating new accounts, editing under IP, or any other violation of the rules under your current block, there is a very good chance that you may be unblocked. This sort of proof of change takes time, and there just has not been enough yet. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:55, 20 October 2008 (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.

So shall i wait for a couple of months to let tension settle and then continue to contest my block? Cedunited (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the reason. You should wait a few months because your block is for creating multiple accounts to continue to edit, and to avoid existing blocks. This is compounded when you continue the same behavior. If you cease this behavior for an extended period of time (that is, if you stop creating new accounts to edit while your first account is blocked) then it shows you intend to "play by the rules" and will likely be able to convince other admins that you don't wish to be a disruption anymore. Given that the most recent violations of this nature are only a few days old, no one really believes your intent to stop creating new accounts, unless we can see evidence that you have actually, you know, stopped. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, Jayron, may you please go through and block this account i used to ask Frickative a question yesterday, she should probobly respond to that quickly, it might be worth informing her of this situation, with her being one of the main involved with this. Cedunited (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing (sorry to butt in on this), i'm sure it should be clear to you that PUG406 is a sock account operated by WJH1992, main evidence being his grammar during discussion, and clearly engaged in typical WJH1992 related edits, he has now returned a month later to try and evade his blocks. This user also appears to be related to myself (see my primary account), i seem to be constantly caught in his rangeblocks! Cedunited (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock (4th)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Now that I have waited for enough time to ensure that I'm no longer a sockmaster, may I please be unblocked? True, following what was said above, I did continue to use sock accounts after a admin declared that I may be unblocked if I don't use socks for a period of about a couple of months. But my last dated sock puppet was Jackalhunter, last edited 10 November, 2 months from now. (PS: I can't use my primary account as the talk page has been protected)

Decline reason:

You have shown, repeatedly, in your initial lack of truthfulness about your sockpuppetry and in your inability or unwillingness to keep your promised word, that you are not trustworthy. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:06, 10 January 2009 (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.

So the admin said to you on October 20, we'll possibly allow you back if you don't edit for maybe 2, 3 months. So what'd you do? Edit two weeks later. How are we supposed to take you on your word if you act like that? either way (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

When I came back as a sock several weeks later, I was blatently doing the wrong thing, but, I then realised that what I was doing was wrong and stopped. Cedunited. 13:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock (5th)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why? I waited, like an admin suggested, for about a couple of months, he said that following this, I could be unblocked. I hesitated, created a sock, before realising that what I was doing was wrong. I was confident that if I kept my word, my unblock would be granted. May I please be unblocked now? I'm not sure you should refuse after another editor convinced me that if I did a certain thing, my wish would be granted.

Decline reason:

No, he said there's a "very good chance," he didn't say "you will be unblocked." He said after 2-3 months of not using socks, it may be considered. You then went and violated his trust by using socks 2 weeks later. And now, you're asking to be unblocked less than 2 months after last using a sock. Declined again.— either way (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2009 (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.

Unblock (6th)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Despite what your saying, my last sockpuppet dates back to November 10, 2008, to be precise, a good two months back. Since then, I have realised that what I have done is wrong, and now I am completely redeemed. Therefore, I think I can be trusted to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

WP:RFU is not a "play until you win" game. The potential benefit of your contributions does not even come close to the disruption that you cause. Considering the severity of your previous actions and the disregard for Wikipedia policy, if I saw your unblock request pop up four or five months from now I might consider an unblock. In the meantime, I'm protecting the page to prevent further abuse of the WP:RFU process. — Trusilver 17:06, 10 January 2009 (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.