VampireDoctor
Limit your talk to bulletpoints, please...
FEBRUARY 2010
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Claudia Chase, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. MaenK.A.Talk 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
VampireDoctor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What did I vandalise?
Decline reason:
This is completely unacceptable. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 03:52, 16 February 2010 (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.
VampireDoctor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hey racists, you are blocking me because I used the word negro? The page in question deals with a man not even of African origin... And technically, negro is more correct than African American.
Decline reason:
Ok, I'm going to try and assume good faith here and try to explain it to you.
- "negro" is widely considered a demeaning and outdated term
- The currently accepted term in the U.S. is in fact "African American" regardless of whether it is "more accurate" which is a dubious claim in and of itself
- It's hard to believe that you honestly didn't know that since "negro" hasn't really been in wide usage for about the last thirty years, maybe longer
- Making an accusation of racism in your unblock request is one of the surest paths to not getting unblocked.
- We do indeed have a rather large problem here with people coming in and making blatantly racist edits, so tempers are a bit short in that regard. If you honestly didn't mean any harm with that edit, then hopefully you have learned something here today, that it's use is outmoded and not considered an acceptable description for an encyclopedic article.
- Please try to keep all these points in mind when making any future unblock requests, or you may find your ability to appeal your block in this way will be revoked permanently.
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.
Comment A review of the user's contributions to Louisiana State appears to confirm that this is yet another sockpuppet of indef-blocked User:Shamhat456, being used to evade a block. Combine this with some of the other edits, and the graphic the user chose for their user page (now removed), and there is no apparent reason to ever unblock. --Ckatzchatspy 05:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed - this earlier comment of mine was removed:
Anyone unsure whether your edits are intended as vandalism or not may find these diffs useful to decide the matter: [1] and [2]. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)