Unclebert11

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).

Unclebert11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been more than a month now, so due to this I think I can be trusted. The Unclebert10 profile was the first one I had, so I was just testing.

Decline reason:

You still need to request unblock with your original account. Sandstein 10:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

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 should be noted that if you had intended to keep this account, you cannot remove previously-declined unblock notices from this talkpage while still blocked. Go back to your original account. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

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).

Unclebert11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Could you still do it here though please, because have noticed the user interface is messed up when I logged in to my old account just then. In fact, how do I show you the evidence(I have taken the screenshot and I probably would'nt be allowed to upload at this time)?

Decline reason:

Neither account has a snowball's chance in hell of being unblocked, to tell you the truth. We Indefinitely block sockpuppets for a reason: they're disruptive. Clear your cache, change your preferences to a different skin, whatever, but you might want to take the advice in WP:OFFER at this point in time. Stop socking, go away for awhile and edit somewhere in a productive manner, show you can followsimple policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

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.

Uncyclopedia it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclebert11 (talk • contribs)

I suggested "productive" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well at least it's democracy over there. They only give a damn what you do, not say. Unclebert11 12:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And before I leave, I leave you with:Wikipedia. Odds are it's bigger than yours!^{[citation needed]} Unclebert11 12:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Cecil Knight for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cecil Knight is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Knight until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Add topic