Lookie Louis
Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Intelligent design for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.—Kww(talk) 04:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
editI've blocked you from editing Wikipedia for disruption. CheckUser evidence would suggest that Poowe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lookie Louis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same person. Since the main actions of these accounts have been to create a previously deleted article (by a banned user) and then nominate it for deletion, my feeling is that at the very least some childish game is being played and the very worst a petty attempt at harassment was happening.
You are, of course, able to appeal this block using {{unblock|your reason here}} and an independent admin will look into the matter and the thread at ANI. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 10:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Lookie Louis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Talk about irony. I have a friend and colleague who has talked about Wikipedia several times, and we were discussing Lih's views versus The Cult of the Amateur. I created the page - look at it! it's hardly vandalism! - with the best of intentions. Turns out he created a separate account when he nominated it because of misunderstandings like this one and not wanting to get his normal account branded with a shared IP. He even told me he had a tongue in cheek reason about "a misguided admirer" when he "nominated" it for deletion.
Decline reason:
We do not normally accept the "my friend did it" excuse. Sandstein 22:03, 16 February 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.
Lookie Louis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Did you even look at the article I had created? It was not vandalism. This was a case of a shared IP is all. As I said, an ironic one at that.
Decline reason:
Having read the AN thread and reviewed the banned-user edits I am declining, as I cannot be sure this situation is as represented. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 17 February 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.
- Nobody said it was vandalism. What we said was disruption, which is a different kettle of fish. ➲ redvers sit down next to me 22:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is it disruptive to create a legitimate, sourced article about the author of an upcoming book? Lookie Louis (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't. The problem is - nobody believes your account above. It sure looks like you created the page and then nominated it for deletion yourself and that certainly is disruptive. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is it disruptive to create a legitimate, sourced article about the author of an upcoming book? Lookie Louis (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)