User talk:SecularHumanist1789

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).

SecularHumanist1789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Simply no "edit warring" involved. I merely added information to the article on the last edit! Editor "Rjanag" is involved, and therefore not impartial. Seems to have a personal vendetta, obsessive dimension. Also, I don't see how removing unsourced claims can possibly be construed as "edit warring" - even if I did so twice or three times. SecularHumanist1789 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please read and understand the edit warring policy. The only listed exception is reverting blatant vandalism, which is not what you were doing. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2011 (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.

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).

SecularHumanist1789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Admin "Beeblebrox" obviously didn't read the edit history, and has just inserted a template/copy+paste function. Woefully inadequate behavior for an "admin" who seems to delight in blocking people. SecularHumanist1789 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

no valid unblock reason given. Attacking other editors will not advance your argument.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:49, 2 March 2011 (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.

I am not wholly clear why you feel that I would wish to do this [1]; is there a good reason why you should not have your block extended for incivility? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]